HELP HARLAN ELLISON SAVE WATERSHED LAND FROM DEVELOPERS
Rick Wyatt
From the news page at Ellison Webderland,
http://www.menagerie.net/ellison/ellinews.htm
CONTACT COUNCILMAN MIKE FEUER!
Those of you who caught Harlan's appearance on Tom Snyder's LATE LATE
SHOW last night know that HE lives on 200 acres of beautiful watershed
land that Edgar Rice Burroughs once camped and threw parties on and
that he and Leonard Nimoy were instrumental in saving from developers.
Now the Buckley School, a local high school operating under a
Conditional Use Permit (CDU) on this land, is attempting to expand and
build a performing arts center and tennis courts (among other things)
on this national resource, one of the last few significant patches of
green in all of Los Angeles.
This is not a public school we are talking about. It is a private
school for local wealthy families, many of whom are falling over
themselves to donate money so they can have buildings named after them
as they turn this place into a country club. The Buckley School is
supposed to be restricted to 750 students, is presently over 800, and
is seeking to increase THAT number by 20%. They want to increase their
building space from 96,000 square feet to 167,000, which will expand
their area into the greenspace that borders Fossil Ridge Park. Harlan
has spent 28 years of his life fighting this kind of development, but
if this school gets it's way first it will beat the crap out of the
land and second the kind of businesses that support a larger student
body will most likely soon follow suit.
Mike Feuer, councilman for the fifth district of LA, is considering
the school's request. Harlan needs YOU to write Mr. Feuer (please be
polite!) and ask him to deny the expansion of the school grounds on
the basis of preventing the destruction of this beautiful and historic
land. Also, if you are a resident of Los Angeles contact your local
councilperson and let them know about this! Councilman Feurer is said
to be on the fence on this issue, a groundswelling of polite but firm
support for protecting the land will likely make a HUGE difference.
Write to his Sherman Oaks office:
Michael Feuer
Councilman, Fifth District, Los Angeles
1431 Ventura Blvd, Suite 100
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
-and maybe send a copy to his main office-
Room 380, City Hall
200 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
More contact information and biographical information may be found on
Mr. Feuer's homepage at:
http://www.ci.la.ca.us/dept/COUNCIL/cd5/index.htm. If you are a local
resident or don't trust the mail you may want to call the Sherman Oaks
office at (818) 756-8083 and pass on your thoughts to Sharon Mayer,
Mr. Feuer's executive assistant.
Please write Councilman Feuer today! Again, PLEASE be polite, we are
looking to change his mind, not piss him off!
Rick Wyatt (rwy...@crl.com) No clever quote, deal with it
curator, Ellison Webderland http://www.menagerie.net/ellison/
Joel Rosenberg
In article <358beefc....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net says...
>
>
>This is not a public school we are talking about. It is a private
>school for local wealthy families, many of whom are falling over
>themselves to donate money so they can have buildings named after them
>as they turn this place into a country club.
How horrible! Is there any chance we can have these evil people strung up?
>The Buckley School is
>supposed to be restricted to 750 students, is presently over 800, and
>is seeking to increase THAT number by 20%.
That's the trouble when you let schools into your community. They'll stop at
nothing in their insatiable desires to educate sometimes even
hundreds more students.
>They want to increase their
>building space from 96,000 square feet to 167,000, which will expand
>their area into the greenspace that borders Fossil Ridge Park. Harlan
>has spent 28 years of his life fighting this kind of development, but
>if this school gets it's way first it will beat the crap out of the
>land and second the kind of businesses that support a larger student
>body will most likely soon follow suit.
First students, then what? Bookstores? Will these people stop at nothing?
>
>Mike Feuer, councilman for the fifth district of LA, is considering
>the school's request. Harlan needs YOU to write Mr. Feuer (please be
>polite!) and ask him to deny the expansion of the school grounds on
>the basis of preventing the destruction of this beautiful and historic
>land.
Absolutely. God forbid Mr. Ellison's private park should be turned into a
*shudder* _school._
--
------------------------------------------------------------
After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns
away from the people who *didn't* do it. I sure as hell
wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people
allowed guns are the police and the military.
William Burroughs
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Wyatt
jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel Rosenberg) wrote:
>>This is not a public school we are talking about. It is a private
>>school for local wealthy families, many of whom are falling over
>>themselves to donate money so they can have buildings named after them
>>as they turn this place into a country club.
>How horrible! Is there any chance we can have these evil people strung up?
Sarcasm and hyperbole notwithstanding, I think I would prefer that
"we" continue to protect the land, as was the original intent of the
school's permit.
The point was that this was not a public school that was horribly in
need of space or funds.
>>The Buckley School is
>>supposed to be restricted to 750 students, is presently over 800, and
>>is seeking to increase THAT number by 20%.
>That's the trouble when you let schools into your community. They'll stop at
>nothing in their insatiable desires to educate sometimes even
>hundreds more students.
I'm sorry, I seem to have misdirected my post to either alt.flame or
alt.pave.the.earth (unless of course your rhetoric was seriously
intended to imply there is a dearth of private academies in Los
Angeles). Nothing like a few tennis courts for children's
edification, is there?
Rick Wyatt (rwy...@menagerie.nospam.net) No clever quote
Rick Wyatt
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) wrote:
>Michael Feuer
>Councilman, Fifth District, Los Angeles
>1431 Ventura Blvd, Suite 100
>Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
Oops, that should be 14310, not 1431. My bad.
Morgan
In this post <358e0c12....@nnrp2.crl.com>, Rick Wyatt <rwyatt.nosp
a...@menagerie.removeme.net> said:
>Sarcasm and hyperbole notwithstanding, I think I would prefer that
>"we" continue to protect the land, as was the original intent of the
>school's permit.
>
>The point was that this was not a public school that was horribly in
>need of space or funds.
No. The point is that the land needs protecting, or not, on the basis
of the importance of the land.
Making statements about the school just confuses the issue. Especially
in the way you construct the message. You invite the reader to think
that if it was a poor, underprivaleged school, in dire of need of space,
then the land could go for a burton, because the school's need is
greater.
As does making out (and the post certainly does so) that it should be
saved because Harlan lives there. I suspect Harlan would have a hissy
fit if he saw how that message was constructed.
I do happen to think the land should be saved. But that's because of
the land, and how precious it is in terms of it's placement and history.
Not because Harlan lives there, or because the school is posh.
In fact, the land is pretty lucky to have people like Harlan shouting on
its behalf. But that post of yours needs some serious editing.
It doesn't send the right message.
And you're asking intelligent people to aid you - so don't shout at
them. The heading alone kills whatever issue the post is trying to
raise.
--
Morgan
"Come to the edge." he said. They said "We are afraid." "Come
to the edge." he said. They came. He pushed them...and they flew.
Joel Rosenberg
In article <358e0c12....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net says...
>
>jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel Rosenberg) wrote:
>>>This is not a public school we are talking about. It is a private
>>>school for local wealthy families, many of whom are falling over
>>>themselves to donate money so they can have buildings named after them
>>>as they turn this place into a country club.
>>How horrible! Is there any chance we can have these evil people strung up?
>
>"we" continue to protect the land, as was the original intent of the
>school's permit.
>
As is your right, of course. Me, I'm (like most readers of these newsgroups) not a
resident of LA, nor am I (also, I would hope) easy to incite by a rather clumsy appeal
to class jealousy.
As to a 200 acre "wetlands" in Los Angeles, I find myself -- long a supporter of
keeping large tracts of undeveloped land undeveloped -- rather amused by the
notion of a "wetland" that could be easily packed into a square less than a thousand
yards on a side.
But, hey, we do silly things out here, too. Every once in a while I drive by a "prairie"
-- Federally protected, no less! -- that measures about fifty yards on its longest
dimension.
Ulrika
In article <358e0c12....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) writes:
> Nothing like a few tennis courts for children's
>edification, is there?
My husband went to high school in a private school, one that
had a sliding scale for payment. He wasn't wealthy, then,
or now, as if that had anything to do with it. Private schools
do not cater only to the wealthy -- frequently, they engage in
providing a better quality of education to a wide spectrum of
incomes and classes. And, imho, having sports facilities
for students is generally a good thing, and part of a well-rounded
education. Hard to see it on me now, but I lettered in two sports
in high school myself, and learned valuable lessons from it.
My entirely public high school had tennis courts. Most high
schools in California do. They have other sports facilities as
well. Honestly, I don't think this is a terribly fruitful direction to
take your own sarcasm, as it doesn't appear to be very well
thought out.
"Yes, indeed, the Lord is a shoving leopard." -- Rev. W.A. Spooner
** Ulrika O'Brien-...@aol.com**
Laura Burchard
From jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel Rosenberg):
>As to a 200 acre "wetlands" in Los Angeles, I find myself -- long a
>supporter of keeping large tracts of undeveloped land undeveloped --
>rather amused by the notion of a "wetland" that could be easily packed
>into a square less than a thousand yards on a side.
Some of the most vital wetlands in North America are tiny potholes in the
midwest and northern plains that are only tens of yards on a side; they
support the NA flyway and millions of migratory birds. Size isn't
everything; scattered islands like this one can be absolutely vital.
However, you are quite correct, the wetland should be saved for what it
is, not because it would deprive Ellison of something.
Laura
Rick Wyatt
ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) wrote:
>In article <358e0c12....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
>rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) writes:
>> Nothing like a few tennis courts for children's
>>edification, is there?
>
>My husband went to high school in a private school, one that
>had a sliding scale for payment. He wasn't wealthy, then,
>or now, as if that had anything to do with it. Private schools
>do not cater only to the wealthy -- frequently, they engage in
This is more one of those "billionare boys club" schools, if Harlan's
description is any indication. However, I will not argue the point as
I don't have a demographic of the students.
>My entirely public high school had tennis courts. Most high
>schools in California do. They have other sports facilities as
>well. Honestly, I don't think this is a terribly fruitful direction to
>take your own sarcasm, as it doesn't appear to be very well
>thought out.
Agreed, and apologies to Mr. Rosenburg. Any school is to be lauded
for improving the facilities for the student body; the fact that the
improvement in this case comes at the expense of a precious bit of
watershed land in the middle of Los Angeles is my concern...
Vicki Rosenzweig
In article <358e0c12....@nnrp2.crl.com>, rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) wrote:
>jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel Rosenberg) wrote:
>>>This is not a public school we are talking about. It is a private
>>>school for local wealthy families, many of whom are falling over
>>>themselves to donate money so they can have buildings named after them
>>>as they turn this place into a country club.
>>How horrible! Is there any chance we can have these evil people strung up?
>
>Sarcasm and hyperbole notwithstanding, I think I would prefer that
>"we" continue to protect the land, as was the original intent of the
>school's permit.
>
>need of space or funds.
>
>
>>>supposed to be restricted to 750 students, is presently over 800, and
>>>is seeking to increase THAT number by 20%.
>>That's the trouble when you let schools into your community. They'll stop at
>>nothing in their insatiable desires to educate sometimes even
>>hundreds more students.
>
>I'm sorry, I seem to have misdirected my post to either alt.flame or
>alt.pave.the.earth (unless of course your rhetoric was seriously
>intended to imply there is a dearth of private academies in Los
>edification, is there?
>
You directed your post to a newsgroup that takes little or nothing
on faith, on which there are people who think both schools and
wetlands are valuable. If you wanted cheerleaders, then yes,
you're in the wrong place. (If you wanted cheerleaders, you might
do better trying a school.)
You also directed it to a group full of people who are little
affected by anything that happens to the Los Angeles watershed,
at least one of whom (yours truly) thought Harlan owned the
house he lived in, and thus is confused by the claim that
he needs support from complete strangers to stop the land
he lives on from being turned into a private school. Do
private schools have the right of eminent domain in
California, or is this an expansive concept of "lives on"
such that I can claim to live in Inwood Hill Park because I
walk there most mornings?
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
"Typos are Coyote padding through the language, grinning."
-- Susanna Sturgis
Dan Goodman
In article <6mmofs$ko_...@port.net.interport.net>,
The Minneapolis city government has used the right of eminent domain to
help private businesses.
I believe New York City has also.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Rick Wyatt
Laura, I couldn't agree more and I apologize for appealing to others
with any classist arguments.
I would note that the word "wetland" is entirely Mr. Rosenburg's
invention, regardless of what his placing it in quotation marks twice.
Your remarks, however, apply equally well to watershed land, and you
are also correct that people should write because of its environmental
and historical importance, not because it happens to be in Harlan's
backyard.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
: In article <6mmofs$ko_...@port.net.interport.net>,
: Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@interport.net> wrote:
: >>
: >You directed your post to a newsgroup that takes little or nothing
: >on faith, on which there are people who think both schools and
: >wetlands are valuable. If you wanted cheerleaders, then yes,
: >you're in the wrong place. (If you wanted cheerleaders, you might
: >do better trying a school.)
: >
: >You also directed it to a group full of people who are little
: >affected by anything that happens to the Los Angeles watershed,
: >at least one of whom (yours truly) thought Harlan owned the
: >house he lived in, and thus is confused by the claim that
: >he needs support from complete strangers to stop the land
: >he lives on from being turned into a private school. Do
: >private schools have the right of eminent domain in
: >California, or is this an expansive concept of "lives on"
: >such that I can claim to live in Inwood Hill Park because I
: >walk there most mornings?
: The Minneapolis city government has used the right of eminent domain to
: help private businesses.
: I believe New York City has also.
And as I recall (and I recall because I worked on the case), the
City of Oakland originally tried to keep the Oakland Raiders from
moving to Los Angeles by claiming the team under the doctrine of
eminent domain. This caused the light of battle to appear in our
senior partner's eyes. If anyone has seen "Michael" with John
Travolta, you'll recognize the gleam.
-- LJM
Perrianne Lurie
v...@interport.net (Vicki Rosenzweig) wrote:
>You also directed it to a group full of people who are little
>affected by anything that happens to the Los Angeles watershed,
>at least one of whom (yours truly) thought Harlan owned the
>house he lived in, and thus is confused by the claim that
>he needs support from complete strangers to stop the land
>he lives on from being turned into a private school. Do
>private schools have the right of eminent domain in
>California, or is this an expansive concept of "lives on"
>such that I can claim to live in Inwood Hill Park because I
>walk there most mornings?
Harlan does own the house he lives in. The land in question borders
on his land, and is a public park of some kind.
Perrianne Lurie
BucCONeer, the 56-th World Science Fiction Convention
August 5-9, 1998, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
P.O. Box 314, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
bucc...@bucconeer.worldcon.org
http://www.bucconeer.worldcon.org
Personal E-mail: bucc...@pipeline.com
Joel Rosenberg
In article <358ebf5f....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net says...
>>> Nothing like a few tennis courts for children's
>>>edification, is there?
>>
>>had a sliding scale for payment. He wasn't wealthy, then,
>>or now, as if that had anything to do with it. Private schools
>>do not cater only to the wealthy -- frequently, they engage in
>
>This is more one of those "billionare boys club" schools, if Harlan's
>description is any indication. However, I will not argue the point as
>I don't have a demographic of the students.
Given that you know the school's name, there are probably several better
ways of determining what the nature of the student body is than relying on
Mr. Ellison's antipathy to its requested expansion as the source of your
information about it.
>
>>My entirely public high school had tennis courts. Most high
>>schools in California do. They have other sports facilities as
>>well. Honestly, I don't think this is a terribly fruitful direction to
>>take your own sarcasm, as it doesn't appear to be very well
>>thought out.
>
>Agreed, and apologies to Mr. Rosenburg.
I'm sure Mr. Rosenburg, whoever that might be, would accept your apologies.
John Lorentz
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in article
<HaCj1.989$P8.26...@ptah.visi.com>...
>
> The Minneapolis city government has used the right of eminent domain to
> help private businesses.
>
> I believe New York City has also.
>
expansion of their world headquarters (about three miles from here...and
edging ever closer).
(Nike is not a popular company with a sizable number of Portlanders.)
--John
Joel Rosenberg
In article <358ee4f5....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyett...@menagerie.removeme.net says...
>
>l...@radix.net (Laura Burchard) wrote:
>>>As to a 200 acre "wetlands" in Los Angeles, I find myself -- long a
>>>supporter of keeping large tracts of undeveloped land undeveloped --
>>>rather amused by the notion of a "wetland" that could be easily packed
>>>into a square less than a thousand yards on a side.
>>
>>Some of the most vital wetlands in North America are tiny potholes in the
>>midwest and northern plains that are only tens of yards on a side; they
>>support the NA flyway and millions of migratory birds. Size isn't
>>everything; scattered islands like this one can be absolutely vital.
>>
>>However, you are quite correct, the wetland should be saved for what it
>>is, not because it would deprive Ellison of something.
>
>Laura, I couldn't agree more and I apologize for appealing to others
>with any classist arguments.
>
>I would note that the word "wetland" is entirely Mr. Rosenburg's
>invention, regardless of what his placing it in quotation marks twice.
Mr. Wyett is entirely correct in fact . . .
. . . although in spirit he's rather all, err, wet.
Mea culpa; the error is mine: I was responding to what I thought any
sensible person must have meant -- that this was a valuable wetland, which
is, it seems, actually possible for such a small piece of land (although rather
unlikely, given its location) -- rather than this being an actual watershed of
any significance --
watershed (wô´ter-shèd´, wòt´er-) noun
1.A ridge of high land dividing two areas that are drained by different river
systems. Also called water parting.
2.The region draining into a river, river system, or other body of water.
3.A critical point that marks a division or a change of course; a turning point:
"a watershed in modern American history, a time that . . . forever changed
American social attitudes" (Robert Reinhold).
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version
licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in
accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
-- legal definitions of "watershed" aside. (See A. Lincoln vs. People Who Call
a Tail a Leg)
But I stand corrected. "Watershed," he said, and "watershed," he meant.
Mea culpa. As penance, I'll look at the ecological importance of this
apparently important watershed.
Given the actual water geology of Los Angeles -- see John McPhee's
geological writings -- and the immense and increasing drains that this
almost unimaginably large water sinkhole directly makes on other areas (I'm
not including the many tonnes of water that's trucked into LA as, say, food
every day-- see Heinlein's Moon Is A Harsh Mistress for a discussion of a
similar issue), two hundred acres are almost immeasurably trivial . . . as
watershed, that is.
Well, no, not immeasurably. That's what scientific notation is for, after all.
Last I heard, LA, some other US regions, and Mexico had already divied up a
total of something like 17 million annual acre-feet of the 15 million average
annual acre-feet of the Colorado River. No, that's not a typo -- I guess they
figure that as long as they keep those two hundred acres draining into the
reservoir system, they'll make up that two million annual acre-foot deficit
every year.
From where? Maybe from the Harlan Ellison Small But Apparently Quite
Puissant Watershed?
Okay, let's see -- to make up, say, a nominal one percent of that
ever-growing deficit (and do let's remember that we're not talking about the
much larger actual use, but merely the deficit), each foot of those two
hundred acres would have to have one hundred feet of rainwater fall on it
each year.
So maybe it's not that significant a watershed, after all. (Does it even get as
much as a dozen feet of rainfall every year?) While I have heard suggestions
to the effect that Harlan Ellison is capable of storming about, I don't think
even he, or HE (as Mr. Ellison is sometimes referred to -- God is on a He) is
quite capable of causing the skies to part and that much rain to fall on so
small an area.
Although it might be amusing to watch him try.
But, still, I'm sure, it still makes a nice park, and I think that those people
who are incensed at the thought of an additional tennis court or two in
Harlan Ellison Watershed Part should express their indignation in the
appropriate venues, and I wouldn't want to stop them for a moment.
Pinky swear.
>Your remarks, however, apply equally well to watershed land, and you
>are also correct that people should write because of its environmental
>and historical importance . . .
Err, yeah. Let's just hope that the historical importance that would be
damaged by a tennis court is a bit, well, more less modest than its
raingathering ability.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Up the airy mountain,
Down the rushy glen,
We daren't go a-hunting
For fear of little men.
William Allingham
------------------------------------------------------------
Avram Grumer
In article <6mmofs$ko_...@port.net.interport.net>, v...@interport.net (Vicki
Rosenzweig) wrote:
> You also directed it to a group full of people who are little
> affected by anything that happens to the Los Angeles watershed,
> at least one of whom (yours truly) thought Harlan owned the
> house he lived in, and thus is confused by the claim that
> he needs support from complete strangers to stop the land
> he lives on from being turned into a private school. Do
> private schools have the right of eminent domain in
> California, or is this an expansive concept of "lives on"
> such that I can claim to live in Inwood Hill Park because I
> walk there most mornings?
I saw Harlan talking about this on Tom Snyder's show Friday night.
(Harlan: "Am I babbling?" Tom: "You're being Harlan Ellison.") If I
remember correctly, Harlan doesn't own this land, but his house looks out
over it. He implored viewers everywhere to write and call in to some LA
official (he did ask them to be polite) and ask that the school not be
given permission to expand. I considered calling the show and offering to
do so if Harlan would do something to get Guiliani out of office early.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
Information wants to be incorrectly formatted.
Mike Cheater
In article <6monpk$6ki$1...@blackice.winternet.com>, Joel Rosenberg
<jo...@bigfoot.com> writes
>But, still, I'm sure, it still makes a nice park, and I think that those people
>who are incensed at the thought of an additional tennis court or two in
>Harlan Ellison Watershed Part should express their indignation in the
>appropriate venues, and I wouldn't want to stop them for a moment.
>
>Pinky swear.
"What the **** are we doing tonight Brain?"
"Same as every night, trying to develop the watershed"
--
Mike Cheater
Rick Wyatt
Good afternoon, and welcome to part seven of my popular lecture
series, "Common Errors in Deductive Logic".
In part six, we demonstrated how an intial factual mistake can lead to
a whole string of logical steps which on their own are reasonable and
defensible but lead to a completely erroneous conclusion based on the
original mistake.
If you'll harken back, our brave volunteer, Joel Rosenberg, misquoted
a post of mine referring to protected "watershed land" (which I was
asking folks to help save from encroachment by a private school) as
referring to "wetlands", and proceeded to his own great amusement to
poke fun at the concept of a 200-acre "wetlands":
>As to a 200 acre "wetlands" in Los Angeles, I find myself -- long a
>supporter of keeping large tracts of undeveloped land undeveloped --
>rather amused by the notion of a "wetland" that could be easily
>packed into a square less than a thousand yards on a side.
>
>But, hey, we do silly things out here, too. Every once in a while
>I drive by a "prairie" -- Federally protected, no less! -- that
>measures about fifty yards on its longest dimension
Mr. Rosenberg, however, complicates the lesson by being called on both
the original mistake and the statements he made regarding it, being
first called on his conclusions by Laura Buchard...
>Some of the most vital wetlands in North America are tiny potholes in the
>midwest and northern plains that are only tens of yards on a side; they
>support the NA flyway and millions of migratory birds. Size isn't
>everything; scattered islands like this one can be absolutely vital.
...and then on the mistake by myself:
>>Laura, I couldn't agree more and I apologize for appealing to others
>>with any classist arguments.
>>
>>I would note that the word "wetland" is entirely Mr. Rosenburg's
>>invention, regardless of what his placing it in quotation marks twice.
As a final part of our catching up, note that Joel (after an initial
dig at my spirit and my mispelling of his last name) defends this
mistake by saying his mistake was the result of the normal logical
interpretation of the results of "any sensible person", thus providing
him with the opportunity to issue a "mea culpa" rendered meaningless
by the immediately following text:
>Mr. Wyett is entirely correct in fact . . .
>. . . although in spirit he's rather all, err, wet.
>
>Mea culpa; the error is mine: I was responding to what I thought any
>sensible person must have meant -- that this was a valuable wetland, which
>is, it seems, actually possible for such a small piece of land (although rather
>unlikely, given its location) -- rather than this being an actual watershed of
>any significance --
This is an interesting defense for you logic students to consider: if
you can spend enough times casting aspersions on the logic and common
sense of the person you are debating, you can easily make any errors
you might make seem quite insignificant!
But, of course, that is a matter for our later series: "Rhetoric: the
Arguer's Friend". For now, let's view Mr. Rosenber's follow-up and
find a brand new and completely erroneous assumption that allows us to
demonstrate a whole new way to build a faulty logic chain!
Joel begins by defining the term "watershed" for us:
>watershed (wô´ter-shčd´, wňt´er-) noun
>1.A ridge of high land dividing two areas that are drained by different river
>systems. Also called water parting.
>2.The region draining into a river, river system, or other body of water.
>3.A critical point that marks a division or a change of course; a turning point:
>"a watershed in modern American history, a time that . . . forever changed
>American social attitudes" (Robert Reinhold).
>-- legal definitions of "watershed" aside. (See A. Lincoln vs. People Who Call
>a Tail a Leg)
In case anyone is taking notes, the second definition (referring to
the land itself as opposed to a dividing ridge or a turning point)
carries the word's intended meaning. Also, the parenthetical at the
end is a clever reference to Abraham Lincoln's statement that if you
called a dog's tail a leg the dog would still have four legs as
calling the tail a leg does not make it one. This, again, is a
subject for our rhetoric series, as the obvious implication is that my
calling the land "watershed land" does not make it such.
We continue:
>But I stand corrected. "Watershed," he said, and "watershed," he meant.
This would have been an excellent place for Mr. Rosenberg to end his
commentary. However, this is Usenet, the place where debate goes to
die, so why shouldn't the Joel go on? What't the point of making an
apology if you don't follow it up by savaging someone or something?
Besides which, Joel has not yet had a change to follow his cycle of:
(1) Reading (with poor comprehension)a post.
(2) Making a mistake based on (1)
(3) Attacking the post and poster based on (2)
(4) Reading a response to (3) and thus returning to procedure (1).
On the subject of attacks, I should be fair and note that Mr.
Rosenberg's digs are in the majority confined to the statements
themselves, although in general the tone is one of ridicule and
sarcasm and he can't help but taking a few well-humored shots, and
with some justification.
But, anyway, let's continue!
>Mea culpa. As penance, I'll look at the ecological importance of this
>apparently important watershed.
Aha! Here we see the faulty assumption!
The fact is, the land is not ecologically important as a watershed.
The land simply IS watershed. Nowhere in any previous discussion was
it stated that calling the area "watershed land" was anything other
than a descriptive. It certainly is important that it is an area of
watershed land, as that defines the protected area and gives more
detail about the land, but as he rightly states in meticulous detail
(as you will see shortly), I would be an idiot to claim the land is
important AS a watershed. The fact that I never made such a claim
slows him down not one whit.
Joel also missed Laura's statement about "scattered islands" of green
and their importance to migratory birds or wrote it off (in his zeal)
as insignificant.
Now, having made this assumption, Joel begins attacking it by first
making comments about the geology of Los Angeles:
>Given the actual water geology of Los Angeles -- see John McPhee's
>geological writings -- and the immense and increasing drains that this
>almost unimaginably large water sinkhole directly makes on other areas (I'm
>not including the many tonnes of water that's trucked into LA as, say, food
>every day-- see Heinlein's Moon Is A Harsh Mistress for a discussion of a
>similar issue), two hundred acres are almost immeasurably trivial . . . as
>watershed, that is.
>
>Well, no, not immeasurably. That's what scientific notation is for, after all.
Quite logical and defensible, but completely beside the point of the
discussion.
However, having made the initial assumption, this is by no means
obvious to Mr. Rosenberg, and he continues by comparing the acreage of
the land in question to the actual watershed problem:
>Last I heard, LA, some other US regions, and Mexico had already divied up a
>total of something like 17 million annual acre-feet of the 15 million average
>annual acre-feet of the Colorado River. No, that's not a typo -- I guess they
>figure that as long as they keep those two hundred acres draining into the
>reservoir system, they'll make up that two million annual acre-foot deficit
>every year.
>
>From where? Maybe from the Harlan Ellison Small But Apparently Quite
>Puissant Watershed?
Again, a logical and defensible conclusion proceeding from an
incorrect assumption. The implication is that I am presenting the
saving of this 200-acre area of watershed land as the solution to a 2
MILLION acre deficit. And, of course, it doesn't hurt to ridicule
said watershed land yet again.
Finally, Joel draws up some figures to show us just how ridiculous the
assumption he has made is, still not realizing he is attacking his own
assumption rather than anything I have said:
>Okay, let's see -- to make up, say, a nominal one percent of that
>ever-growing deficit (and do let's remember that we're not talking about the
>much larger actual use, but merely the deficit), each foot of those two
>hundred acres would have to have one hundred feet of rainwater fall on it
>each year.
>
>So maybe it's not that significant a watershed, after all. (Does it even get as
>much as a dozen feet of rainfall every year?) While I have heard suggestions
>to the effect that Harlan Ellison is capable of storming about, I don't think
>even he, or HE (as Mr. Ellison is sometimes referred to -- God is on a He) is
>quite capable of causing the skies to part and that much rain to fall on so
>small an area.
>
>Although it might be amusing to watch him try.
I know, class, that the sarcasm gets a little thick and it may be hard
to understand the point of the unflattering and ridiculous picture
painted of Mr. Ellison, but bear with me. Surely in the midst of all
that you can see that Joel is pointing out (and again, rightly so)
that a nigh-impossible amount of rain would have to fall on "Mr.
Ellison's Puissant Park" to make a difference.
Finally, Joel closes with a sarcastic appeal designed to rain derision
on anyone foolish enough to join this cause that he has just spent so
much time decrying as flawed:
>But, still, I'm sure, it still makes a nice park, and I think that those people
>who are incensed at the thought of an additional tennis court or two in
>Harlan Ellison Watershed Part should express their indignation in the
>appropriate venues, and I wouldn't want to stop them for a moment.
So, here we have our conclusion (again, you will have to interpret the
sarcasm properly to see it):
This watershed land, owned by the Santa Monica Conservancy, could ONLY
be important as a source of rainwater runoff and it's quite silly that
it has been protected for so long. The only possible reason people
like Leonard Nimoy and naturalist Arnold Newman could have fought to
save it is so Harlan Ellison could have his own private stomping
grounds, and it is undoubtedly for that reason that the Edgar Rice
Burroughs society gave Harlan their annual Bibliophiles award in 1996
and not any wacky historical significance. If some school wants to
slap a few tennis courts on the land, for chrissakes let them!
I know, I know, it does seem quite a ridiculous conclusion to make,
and quite contrary to anything anyone else has had to say about the
appeal. However, you have to realize that once Mr. Rosenberg made his
initial faulty assumption and focused solely on that, he had no way of
knowing the horrible wrong turn he had made.
This concludes our lesson.
Now, you might ask, "Why has Joel bothered spending so much time
attacking this idea? Is it to save the legions of people that might
read this the time they might spend acting on it, presumably so they
could spend that time savaging the good works of others on the
Internet? Aren't there better things he could spend his own time and
energy on?".
You might also assume that this lecture was merely a satire of the
lecture Mr. Rosenberg delivered to me one of the three times he
decided to ridicule both me and the cause I forwarded, and that people
truly interested in said cause should look into it for themselves
rather than following the person who has fired the last salvo.
But, of course, having read the above, you realize Joel was merely
assisting me in preparing this lecture and providing a wealth of
samples of folly from which I could draw.
And, perhaps, showing yet another instance in which the mind may be
willing but the spirit is, err, wet.
Joel Rosenberg
In article <3590583a...@nnrp2.crl.com>,
>Joel begins by defining the term "watershed" for us:
>>watershed (wô´ter-shčd´, wňt´er-) noun
>>1.A ridge of high land dividing two areas that are drained by different river
>>systems. Also called water parting.
>>2.The region draining into a river, river system, or other body of water.
>>3.A critical point that marks a division or a change of course; a turning point:
>>"a watershed in modern American history, a time that . . . forever changed
>>American social attitudes" (Robert Reinhold).
Well, no. That's the definition out of Microsoft bookshelp -- the nearest
reference I had handy. If you've got a better one, trot it out and help save the
Harlan Ellison Diminitive But Nevertheless Quite Puissant Watershed.
And quickly, if you please. As I understand it from your writing, there are
scores of billionaires' offspring dressed in their tennis whites, rackets and
cans of balls in hand, eyeing a large percentage of the little thing with
unconcealed lust.
Los Angeles
The freeway experience . . . is the only secular communion Los Angeles has. . . .
Actual participation requires a total surrender, a concentration so intense as to
seem a kind of narcosis, a rapture-of-the-freeway. The mind goes clean. The
rhythm takes over.
Joan Didion (b. 1935), U.S. essayist. The White Album, "The Bureaucrats"
(1979; first published 1976).
Loren Joseph MacGregor
I do have a question, which may be impertinent. I understand that
other areas of watershed land have in the past been claimed in
the LA area, for schools, for malls, for office buildings, etc.
Has Mr. Ellison in the past made any effort to involve himself
in the protection of watershed land that wasn't in his back yard?
-- LJM
CensusGrrl
If Harlan has intended to serve as a teacher of any kind, he has certainly done
some good in teaching that challenging the statements of others is a Good
Thing.
So...
The boy has cried Wolf. I'm looking for evidence of the wolf.
So far, I haven't found evidence to support Harlan's charges, as you represent
them.
"It is a private school for local wealthy families, many of whom are falling
over themselves to donate money so they can have buildings named after them as
they turn this place into a country club." The Buckley School *is* a private
school. It provides bus transportation for its students, so that does imply
that it is for *local* families. But "for local *wealthy* families" implies
that it is *exclusively* for same. If this is the case, why would the school
set aside over half a million dollars specifically for scholarships and
financial aid, given that such funding is unnecessary? (My own opinion is that
these grants exist because students need them.) As for "falling over themselves
to donate money so they can have buildings named after them," what evidence is
there of this? A map of the grounds shows that there are two buildings named
after individuals (the Quinn Martin Hall of Science and the Robert Young
Library), and one area named after a corporation (the Disney Family Pavilion).
What other buildings have been named because of donated money?
"The Buckley School is supposed to be restricted to 750 students, is presently
over 800, and is seeking to increase THAT number by 20%." According to the
Peterson's web site (a site for information about educational resources), the
Buckley School's enrollment is 774. This is more than 750, but less than "over
800." Where did the "over 800" number come from?
"They want to increase their building space from 96,000 square feet to 167,000,
which will expand their area into the greenspace that borders Fossil Ridge
Park." According to the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy web site, the Buckley
School is *donating* the "lower portion" of land associated with Oak Forest
Canyon, described by the SMMC as an "Important cross-mountain habitat linkage
adjacent to Fossil Ridge Park." How, if at all, does this donation of land *to*
the Conservancy by the school fit into the "greenspace that borders Fossil
Ridge Park"? And since the school has an environmental educational program, and
its own nature trail (described on the Buckley School web site as "Tucked into
the forested hillside behind the stadium is a wonderful nature trail developed
by science teachers George Hathaway & Kathy Griffis, for educational use by the
Lower, Middle & Upper Schools"), is it inappropriate or silly to speculate that
additional land acquired by the school might be going to an expansion of the
nature trail?
I'm on the East Coast, and infer that this issue may have been discussed
extensively in local newspapers. I'd like to see the perspectives and coverage
of this issue that must be available from other participants or journalists
covering the story. Can you point me in the direction of further resources for
information about the facts of this park dispute?
Joel Rosenberg
In article <199806241814...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, censu...@aol.com says...
>
>If Harlan has intended to serve as a teacher of any kind, he has certainly done
>some good in teaching that challenging the statements of others is a Good
>Thing.
Amen. And while I think that Harlan Ellison's virtue as role model can quite easily be overestimated --
something and that I suspect Mr. Ellison and I would agree on, although knowing him only from his
various public personas, I wouldn't want to count on it -- i think he does a great service in this.
On the other hand, Mr. Ellison does have a history of striking up the band, and suggesting that
everybody within hearing has a moral obligation to jump on his latest bandwagon. Does anybody
remember the name of that gasoline additive...?
>
>So...
>
>The boy has cried Wolf. I'm looking for evidence of the wolf.
>
>So far, I haven't found evidence to support Harlan's charges, as you represent
>them.
>
>"It is a private school for local wealthy families, many of whom are falling
>over themselves to donate money so they can have buildings named after them as
>they turn this place into a country club." The Buckley School *is* a private
>school. It provides bus transportation for its students, so that does imply
>that it is for *local* families. But "for local *wealthy* families" implies
>that it is *exclusively* for same. If this is the case, why would the school
>set aside over half a million dollars specifically for scholarships and
>financial aid, given that such funding is unnecessary? (My own opinion is that
>these grants exist because students need them.) As for "falling over themselves
>to donate money so they can have buildings named after them," what evidence is
>there of this? A map of the grounds shows that there are two buildings named
>after individuals (the Quinn Martin Hall of Science and the Robert Young
>Library), and one area named after a corporation (the Disney Family Pavilion).
>What other buildings have been named because of donated money?
>
>"The Buckley School is supposed to be restricted to 750 students, is presently
>over 800, and is seeking to increase THAT number by 20%." According to the
>Peterson's web site (a site for information about educational resources), the
>Buckley School's enrollment is 774. This is more than 750, but less than "over
>800." Where did the "over 800" number come from?
I'm curious about the "supposed to" part, myself. Is there some specific maximum enrollment
provision in California law? It occurs to me that that might be a good thing -- but it does some like an
unlikely thing, all things considered.
Evelyn C. Leeper
In article <199806241814...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
CensusGrrl <censu...@aol.com> wrote:
> If Harlan has intended to serve as a teacher of any kind, he has certainly done
> some good in teaching that challenging the statements of others is a Good
> Thing.
>
>
> The boy has cried Wolf. I'm looking for evidence of the wolf.
>
> So far, I haven't found evidence to support Harlan's charges, as you represent
> them.
>
> and references from elsewhere]
Don't you know that doing actual research, rather than just flaming
away, is liable to get you barred from rec.arts.sf.fandom?
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | ele...@lucent.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
"I am so small I can barely be seen. How can this great love be inside me?"
"Look at your eyes. They are small but they see enormous things." --Rumi
Marilee J. Layman
In <3590583a...@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) wrote:
(cut back to rasff)
> the unflattering and ridiculous picture
>painted of Mr. Ellison
I think Ellison does this quite well for himself. If he wants this
information on the net, why doesn't he stick out his chin and do it
himself? Even your information is secondhand.
FWIW, I have more Rosenberg books in my library than Ellison books,
although their writing is of such different styles as to be impossible
to compare.
--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
relm...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
*New* Web site: http://www.webmoose.com/owc/
AOL keyword: BOOKs > Books Community > The Other*Worlds*Cafe (listbox)
Morgan
In this post <35926ae6...@news.erols.com>, "Marilee J. Layman"
<mjla...@erols.com> said:
>In <3590583a...@nnrp2.crl.com>,
>rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) wrote:
>
>(cut back to rasff)
>
>
>I think Ellison does this quite well for himself. If he wants this
>information on the net, why doesn't he stick out his chin and do it
>himself? Even your information is secondhand.
I doubt Harlan does 'want' it on the Net. I suspect Rick Wyatt
responded to Harlan's TV appearance by deciding to help him out, by
doing it on the Net and Harlan's getting stick in this for something
Harlan hasn't done or said.
The wording that has rubbed people up the wrong way, I suspect, comes
entirely from Rick. Whom has probably made the classic mistake of
taking something said in a visual and audio medium, paraphrasing it, and
sent it into a written medium. And shouted, to boot.
It's not Harlan's fault - Rick should represent Harlan better than he
has, if he wants to actually do him the service he is apparently
offering.
Neither the message, nor the responses made so far, help save the
Watershed, which *is* important.
Cally Soukup
Rick Wyatt <rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net> wrote:
> Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> But, anyway, let's continue!
> >Mea culpa. As penance, I'll look at the ecological importance of this
> >apparently important watershed.
> Aha! Here we see the faulty assumption!
> The fact is, the land is not ecologically important as a watershed.
> The land simply IS watershed. Nowhere in any previous discussion was
> it stated that calling the area "watershed land" was anything other
> than a descriptive. It certainly is important that it is an area of
> watershed land, as that defines the protected area and gives more
> detail about the land, but as he rightly states in meticulous detail
> (as you will see shortly), I would be an idiot to claim the land is
> important AS a watershed. The fact that I never made such a claim
> slows him down not one whit.
Excuse me, but I can speak with some authority on the subject. I
often have to research watersheds for a civil engineering office. In
civil engineering terms, a watershed is simply the area which feeds,
by overland sheet flow, water to one particular place, usually a
waterway, lake, ocean, or storm inlet. The area west of the
Continental Divide is all part of the superwatershed that feeds the
Pacific Ocean.
ALL LAND IS PART OF A WATERSHED, unless is is perfectly and
mathematically flat. Bowl shaped land feeds an ocean, lake, pond, or
puddle. What is the point of defining, as if it were an especially
valuable remark, the land in question as "watershed land"? My front
yard is watershed land, and it's ecologically a worthless biculture
(there's some quackgrass in with the fescue).
> Joel also missed Laura's statement about "scattered islands" of green
> and their importance to migratory birds or wrote it off (in his zeal)
> as insignificant.
Nothing in your initial definition as I remember it showed why this
land is ecologically important, nor how development would impair its
ecologic worth. Sometimes development *helps* ecologic worth; how do
we know this wouldn't be the case here?
Actually, a few tennis courts would increase net runoff from the
property, unless detention areas were part of the design. Detention
areas and wetland mitigation are required by law in my part of the
US, though, and I assume yours as well.
> Finally, Joel closes with a sarcastic appeal designed to rain derision
> on anyone foolish enough to join this cause that he has just spent so
> much time decrying as flawed:
> >But, still, I'm sure, it still makes a nice park, and I think that those people
> >who are incensed at the thought of an additional tennis court or two in
> >Harlan Ellison Watershed Part should express their indignation in the
> >appropriate venues, and I wouldn't want to stop them for a moment.
> So, here we have our conclusion (again, you will have to interpret the
> sarcasm properly to see it):
> This watershed land, owned by the Santa Monica Conservancy, could ONLY
> be important as a source of rainwater runoff and it's quite silly that
> it has been protected for so long. The only possible reason people
> like Leonard Nimoy and naturalist Arnold Newman could have fought to
> save it is so Harlan Ellison could have his own private stomping
> grounds, and it is undoubtedly for that reason that the Edgar Rice
> Burroughs society gave Harlan their annual Bibliophiles award in 1996
> and not any wacky historical significance. If some school wants to
> slap a few tennis courts on the land, for chrissakes let them!
I don't recognise Leonard Nimoy as an expert in ecology or
development. As for Arnold Newman, a few facts as to exactly *why*
he feels the non-development of the land is important would be
indicated. Also his credentials, as anyone can call himself a
naturalist.
And what in the blue blazes does a Bibliophiles award, however well
merited, have to do with development of land? Is it part of the
"historical significance"? What *is* historically significant
about this piece of land? You've asserted that it is, but I don't
recall seeing any post from you where you've actually explained this
assertion.
Looking forward to a message with more information, and less heat,
Cally.
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup ma...@mcs.com
Joel Rosenberg
In article <35926ae6...@news.erols.com>, mjla...@erols.com says...
>
>In <3590583a...@nnrp2.crl.com>,
>rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) wrote:
>
>(cut back to rasff)
>
>
>I think Ellison does this quite well for himself. If he wants this
>information on the net, why doesn't he stick out his chin and do it
>himself?
As long as Mr. Ellison can get others to carry his water for him, I can't see why
he would want to do it himself. (Me, I hate to clean my own kitchen and living
room, so I hire it out without shame or regret.)
And given his own expressed low opinion for the 'net and those people who
spend any time communicating via it, interacting with it via remote control
at most would seem to be sensible.
>Even your information is secondhand.
>
>FWIW, I have more Rosenberg books in my library than Ellison books,
*blush*
>although their writing is of such different styles as to be impossible
>to compare.
Then again, given that I write almost exclusively novels (I recently published
my first short story in ten years, and while I'm happy with it, I'd hardly
consider it a major work of any sort) and Mr. Ellison's published writing of
recent decades is, as far as I know, still almost exclusively short fiction
combined with the sort of high-pitched, impassioned largely nonfictional essays
for which he is justly famous -- it's not just a matter of style, but of concerns,
both in form and substance.
(The fictional matters that primarily concern me -- the interplay between brutal
necessity and morally ambiguously brutality; choice of occupation as rite of
passage into adulthood; parental and quasi-parental bonding and dysfunction;
an odd personal metaphor and agenda here and there -- weren't of any
particular visibility in Harlan Ellison's work when I was still reading it, although
that may have changed. That's an observation, not a slam -- those are issues
that are rarely significant in Donald Westlake's stuff, and I absolutely adore
Westlake's fiction and nonfiction.)
Still, I should at some point write him a nice note. The gimmick that I created
for the Keepers of the Hidden Ways books originated with a disparaging
comment that Ellison threw off in an essay of his I read some years ago (if
anybody has the disparaging Ellison quote fantasy books which contain
searches for jewels, I'd appreciate the pointer), and if I can find a way to
express my gratitude without expressing the implicit snarkiness, I probably
should.
Not easy to do, even when I try. Some years ago, Normal Spinrad seemed
somewhat taken aback when I pointed out that an essay of his on the
supposedly instrinsic evils of series fiction had inspired my Guardians of the
Flame series -- but maybe Mr. Ellison has a thicker skin.
In the meantime, though, when I go a-marching' on various matters
political -- and I am, and I do -- it's probably not going to be for Harlan
Ellison's park.
Mileage, of course, may vary.
Joel Rosenberg
In article <35917ffc...@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net says...
>The school is a high-profile and exclusive academy - since you did the
>research on the school you'll notice the tuition ranges from around
>$10,000/year for pre-kindergarten to around $16,000 for grades
6-12,
That's not particularly expensive, by most standards for private schools.
Not quite the billionaires' boys school that you'd portrayed it as
originally, eh? Any idea what Pomfret or Sidwell or Choate or Moses
Brown go for?
Hell, the official county rate for plain, vanilla pre-school childcare runs
about $6000 per year in Hennepin County. Per kid.
>due in full before the start of the academic year. At those rates,
>the $540,000 earmarked for financial aid will pay for about 30-50 of
>the 750 (+) students, or about 3-4 per grade level.
Assuming, of course, that that half million would go for full scholarships
only. Given that the Buckley School, as your research has indicated,
uses the independent SSS system for determining aid, it's unlikely that
that's the case, and much more likely that there are many more,
smaller scholarships, enabling parents who are willing to make serious
financial sacrifices, but can't quite swing the full fees, to send their
children to this school to do so.
That's fairly typical, these days. At Pomfret, for example, 44% of the
students receive some financial aid.
>
>I submit to you that the average family with 2 children would spend
>just over $425,000 total (over $28,000/yr) enrolling those children in
>the Buckley School. While the 5% of the student body getting a free
>ride might not qualify as wealthy, the other 95% probably do.
And there you go again, not only assuming something not in evidence,
but unlikely. I doubt that there are very many students who are
getting this "free ride" that you'd wish to encourage others to resent.
But, you're right, $28K per year is a lot of money -- but hardly the sort
of money only available to "billionaires". It's certainly the sort of
money that you'd expect, say, a doctor or a dentist or a lawyer or a
senior systems geek to be able to pay -- and, in fact, it's a lot less than
that "average family with two children" are likely to be spending during
their kids' college years if either one of the kids is going to a private
college instead of a state university.
...
>I've asked Susan Ellison to send me a list of the projected new
>buildings and developments and their names. I'll post it tomorrow.
Please do -- and the sooner the better. Tomorrow I've got to drop my
older daughter off at the Ackerman Family Campground at the JCC day
camp for her first overnight, and I probably should get directions to the
Ackermans' home so that I can stop off on my way back to sneer at
those Ackerman family plutocrats for their solecism of having "lined up"
to let the JCC put their name on the campground they also "lined up"
and donated such a huge chunk of money to make available as a camp
that is, this summer, full of happy and active children, some of whom
-- not my daughter, alas! -- are getting one of those "free rides" that
you despise . . .
. . . or, as we call them hereabouts, a "scholarship".
Or maybe not.
Ray Radlein
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>
> On the other hand, Mr. Ellison does have a history of striking up
> the band, and suggesting that everybody within hearing has a moral
> obligation to jump on his latest bandwagon. Does anybody remember
> the name of that gasoline additive...?
"Fire"?
- Ray R.
--
********************************************************************
"I've got three paperclips, a toaster, and some pantyhose. If
I can find a bar of chocolate and some hairspray, I can make
myself a suit of BIO-BOOSTER ARMOR!" -- MacGuyver
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
********************************************************************
mike weber
Sometime around Thu, 25 Jun 1998 01:22:18 -0400, Ray Radlein
<r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, Mr. Ellison does have a history of striking up
>> the band, and suggesting that everybody within hearing has a moral
>> obligation to jump on his latest bandwagon. Does anybody remember
>> the name of that gasoline additive...?
>
>"Fire"?
>
Bolonium concentrate?
--
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
Life's a game where they're bound to beat you, and time's
a trick they can turn to cheat you -- and we only waste
it anyway, that's the hell of it -- Paul Williams
Rich McAllister
Cally Soukup <ma...@mcs.com> writes:
> The area west of the
> Continental Divide is all part of the superwatershed that feeds the
> Pacific Ocean.
No, it's not. The Great Basin doesn't drain *anywhere*. Follow the
Humboldt River on a map of Nevada. Note that it wanders across the state
and eventually just gives up and stops.
Nice map of the Basin at:
http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/humanities/basin/gb_map2.gif
--
Rich McAllister <r...@eng.sun.com>
Loren Joseph MacGregor
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, mike weber <emsh...@aol.com> wrote:
: Sometime around Thu, 25 Jun 1998 01:22:18 -0400, Ray Radlein
: <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
: >Joel Rosenberg wrote:
: >>
: >> On the other hand, Mr. Ellison does have a history of striking up
: >> the band, and suggesting that everybody within hearing has a moral
: >> obligation to jump on his latest bandwagon. Does anybody remember
: >> the name of that gasoline additive...?
: >
: >"Fire"?
: >
: Bolonium concentrate?
Hrm. As far as I can tell, there are two Ellisons, the public and
the private Ellison. The public Ellison assumes that he is performing,
and does shtick, much like a vaudeville comedian. The private Ellison
has done a lot for his friends and his community. Possibly it is
time to point this out before we get too far into poking sticks
into Rick Wyatt and, by extension, Harlan, just to see how far
the frogs will jump?
-- LJM
mike weber
Sometime around 25 Jun 1998 16:35:25 GMT, Loren Joseph MacGregor
<lmac...@efn.org> opined:
To be honest, this far down this cascade i wasn't even thinking
"Harlan" when i typed my response to Ray...
--
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
"No use searching for the answers if the questions
are in doubt." F.leBlanc
Ed Dravecky III
CensusGrrl (censu...@aol.com) wrote:
<on the Buckley School>
<SNIP> A map of the grounds shows that there are two buildings named
> after individuals (the Quinn Martin Hall of Science and the Robert
> Young Library), and one area named after a corporation (the Disney
Sorry, I just fell out of my chair reading the name
"Quinn Martin Hall of Science" as my head filled with
all the comic possibilities the name conjures.
--
Ed Dravecky III <*>
dshe...@netcom.com
Joel Rosenberg
In article <6mtu8d$m51$4...@haus.efn.org>, lmac...@efn.org says...
>
>In rec.arts.sf.fandom, mike weber <emsh...@aol.com> wrote:
>: Sometime around Thu, 25 Jun 1998 01:22:18 -0400, Ray Radlein
>: <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
>
>: >Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>: >>
>: >> On the other hand, Mr. Ellison does have a history of striking up
>: >> the band, and suggesting that everybody within hearing has a
moral
>: >> obligation to jump on his latest bandwagon. Does anybody
remember
>: >> the name of that gasoline additive...?
>: >
>: >"Fire"?
>: >
>: Bolonium concentrate?
>
>Hrm. As far as I can tell, there are two Ellisons, the public and
>the private Ellison. The public Ellison assumes that he is performing,
>and does shtick, much like a vaudeville comedian.
That's the only one I'm referring to -- as to the private Ellison, err,
I don't know him and he doesn't know me. There are many people
who are profoundly the same when performing public and in private --
the late Francis J. Braceland is my favorite example -- and some who are
very, very different -- Jack Benny, for example, was not merely not stingy
in his real persona, but was apparently generous to a degree that
Maimonides would have admired.
>The private Ellison
>has done a lot for his friends
I have no doubt that is true, given the loyalty of his friends. But a
request made on the Tom Snyder Show and/or via an admirer over
the 'net isn't particularly the function of a private anything.
> and his community.
And that may be so. I don't live in his community or know much about
it or his relationship to it -- although I did find the Showtime show of the
same name to be pretty funny, something that I usually don't find in
entertainment that is so self-consciously Califernian.
Marilee J. Layman
In <35917ffc...@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) wrote:
>The school is a high-profile and exclusive academy - since you did the
>research on the school you'll notice the tuition ranges from around
>$10,000/year for pre-kindergarten to around $16,000 for grades 6-12,
>due in full before the start of the academic year.
The only private schools in our area that aren't similar in rate
schedule are evangelical christian schools. This doesn't seem
unreasonable for a private school, and it certainly doesn't sound
massively exclusive. When I worked, I could have afforded this (not
that I have kids).
Loren Joseph MacGregor
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: In article <6mtu8d$m51$4...@haus.efn.org>, lmac...@efn.org says...
: >
: >Hrm. As far as I can tell, there are two Ellisons, the public and
: >the private Ellison. The public Ellison assumes that he is performing,
: >and does shtick, much like a vaudeville comedian.
: That's the only one I'm referring to -- as to the private Ellison, err,
: I don't know him and he doesn't know me. There are many people
: who are profoundly the same when performing public and in private --
: the late Francis J. Braceland is my favorite example -- and some who are
: very, very different -- Jack Benny, for example, was not merely not stingy
: in his real persona, but was apparently generous to a degree that
: Maimonides would have admired.
I think the only problem I have with Ellison is that it appears to
me -- and I could very easily be completely wrong -- that he doesn't
seem to be aware that sometimes his public performance involves
private people who aren't aware that they are supposed to be in
on the game. Sometimes they get their feelings hurt, and --
again, it seems to me -- Harlan seems to believe that they should
know that it is only part of the show, and not meant personally.
I don't know Harlan well at all; I doubt he would recognize me
if he saw me. But from mutual friends I have heard many, many
separate instances of his astonishing private generosity. I
tend to believe them.
: >The private Ellison
: >has done a lot for his friends
: I have no doubt that is true, given the loyalty of his friends. But a
: request made on the Tom Snyder Show and/or via an admirer over
: the 'net isn't particularly the function of a private anything.
Possibly not, and you will note that I did have my own question
in this regard. I think it is likely that Mr. Wyatt oversimplified
his case, leaving out some details such as that it wasn't only
Harlan that was pleading this case, but other people in the
neighborhood who would also be affected by the change. It may
or may not have changed my mind on the issue, but it would have
been another data point.
I am currently living in Eugene, Oregon, where the kind of issues
raised by Mr. Wyatt's original post are raised on a daily basis
here. (We tend to have people who move onto a remote area
because they like the trees, then cut down the trees surrounding
their property because the trees interfere with their view.)
Note that I'm not one to hide my spleen under a bushel, as witness
some of my recent posts, but I think we've whipped this particular
horse so much that further whippings will simply make it lie
down.
: > and his community.
: And that may be so. I don't live in his community or know much about
: it or his relationship to it -- although I did find the Showtime
: show of the same name to be pretty funny, something that I usually
: don't find in entertainment that is so self-consciously Califernian.
Here I must say I have no idea what you're talking about. The
Showtime show of the same name as WHAT?
-- LJM
Joel Rosenberg
In article <6mudjm$spq$1...@haus.efn.org>, lmac...@efn.org says...
>
>In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>: In article <6mtu8d$m51$4...@haus.efn.org>, lmac...@efn.org says...
>: >
>: >Hrm. As far as I can tell, there are two Ellisons, the public and
>: >the private Ellison. The public Ellison assumes that he is performing,
>: >and does shtick, much like a vaudeville comedian.
>
>: That's the only one I'm referring to -- as to the private Ellison, err,
>: I don't know him and he doesn't know me. There are many people
>: who are profoundly the same when performing public and in private --
>: the late Francis J. Braceland is my favorite example -- and some who are
>: very, very different -- Jack Benny, for example, was not merely not stingy
>: in his real persona, but was apparently generous to a degree that
>: Maimonides would have admired.
>
>I think the only problem I have with Ellison is that it appears to
>me -- and I could very easily be completely wrong -- that he doesn't
>seem to be aware that sometimes his public performance involves
>private people who aren't aware that they are supposed to be in
>on the game.
Well, he may be. Or he may simply not care, or he may think that some of his schtick
isn't schtick.
> Sometimes they get their feelings hurt, and --
>again, it seems to me -- Harlan seems to believe that they should
>know that it is only part of the show, and not meant personally.
That isn't something I've seen in his public writings (and I don't mean that which is
labelled as fiction). I get the impression that he really means a lot of what he says
and writes.
>
>I don't know Harlan well at all; I doubt he would recognize me
>if he saw me. But from mutual friends I have heard many, many
>separate instances of his astonishing private generosity. I
>tend to believe them.
>
I've heard all sorts of incidents about Harlan Ellison, both positive and negative, over
the years, and don't know which, if any, ought to be believed.
>: >The private Ellison
>: >has done a lot for his friends
>
>: I have no doubt that is true, given the loyalty of his friends. But a
>: request made on the Tom Snyder Show and/or via an admirer over
>: the 'net isn't particularly the function of a private anything.
>
>Possibly not, and you will note that I did have my own question
>in this regard. I think it is likely that Mr. Wyatt oversimplified
>his case, leaving out some details such as that it wasn't only
>Harlan that was pleading this case, but other people in the
>neighborhood who would also be affected by the change.
I'm sure that he isn't the only person in his neighborhood who is unhappy about this
change, simply because there's pretty much always somebody unhappy about any
change.
>It may
>or may not have changed my mind on the issue, but it would have
>been another data point.
>
>I am currently living in Eugene, Oregon, where the kind of issues
>raised by Mr. Wyatt's original post are raised on a daily basis
>here. (We tend to have people who move onto a remote area
>because they like the trees, then cut down the trees surrounding
>their property because the trees interfere with their view.)
>
Yup. That's one of the reasons that I think zoning isn't as evil a practice as some
seem to maintain it is.
>Note that I'm not one to hide my spleen under a bushel, as witness
>some of my recent posts, but I think we've whipped this particular
>horse so much that further whippings will simply make it lie
>down.
>
>: > and his community.
>
>: And that may be so. I don't live in his community or know much about
>: it or his relationship to it -- although I did find the Showtime
>: show of the same name to be pretty funny, something that I usually
>: don't find in entertainment that is so self-consciously Califernian.
>
>Here I must say I have no idea what you're talking about. The
>Showtime show of the same name as WHAT?
>
"Sherman Oaks". Funny, funny stuff.
Cally Soukup
Rich McAllister <r...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
> Cally Soukup <ma...@mcs.com> writes:
> > The area west of the
> > Continental Divide is all part of the superwatershed that feeds the
> > Pacific Ocean.
> No, it's not. The Great Basin doesn't drain *anywhere*. Follow the
> Humboldt River on a map of Nevada. Note that it wanders across the state
> and eventually just gives up and stops.
> Nice map of the Basin at:
> http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/humanities/basin/gb_map2.gif
I sit corrected. Then the area of the Great Basin is the Humboldt
River's watershed. (I deliberately chose the western half of the
Continental Divide on the mistaken belief that the geology was a
little more straightforward over there. My mistake.)
Vicki Rosenzweig
In article <uyfpvfxza...@eng.sun.com>, Rich McAllister <r...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
>Cally Soukup <ma...@mcs.com> writes:
>
>> Continental Divide is all part of the superwatershed that feeds the
>> Pacific Ocean.
>
>Humboldt River on a map of Nevada. Note that it wanders across the state
>and eventually just gives up and stops.
>
>Nice map of the Basin at:
>
>http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/humanities/basin/gb_map2.gif
>
If I recall correctly (my source being McPhee again), the Continental
Divide splits at one point, so that everything to the east of it drains to
the Gulf of Mexico, everything to the west drains to the Pacific, and
some significant amount of acreage does not, in fact, drain anywhere,
and this land is "within" the Continental Divide. This only sounds
absurd--the problem is with the naming, which suggests that the
continent is divided into exactly two things, rather than (as Rich
is correctly pointing out) three or more, the third being "land that
does not drain to the sea."
I also feel like pointing out that, here in the New York area,
"watershed land" is used to mean land that feeds rainwater
into the drinking water/reservoir system, as distinct from
land where the water lands in the Hudson, or waters nothing
but the trees growing on that land, or what-have-you. Watershed
land is thus land that people are concerned to keep relatively
clean, or at least clean of pollutants that could be carried into
the reservoirs by water.
Thus endeth our discussion of the water supply (mercifully
before I wander off into questions of water tunnel 3 or the
debated necessity of filtration).
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
"Typos are Coyote padding through the language, grinning."
-- Susanna Sturgis
mike weber
Sometime around 25 Jun 1998 22:37:19 GMT, jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel
Rosenberg) opined:
>I've heard all sorts of incidents about Harlan Ellison, both positive and negative, over
>the years, and don't know which, if any, ought to be believed.
>
Based on what i personally ((or through immediate friends, whose
veracity i trust -- Hi, Ulrika!)) have heard about the man, the answer
to your implied question is --
"Most of it, though sometimes things are exaggerated."
Rick Wyatt
Morgan <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Making statements about the school just confuses the issue. Especially
>in the way you construct the message. You invite the reader to think
>that if it was a poor, underprivaleged school, in dire of need of space,
>then the land could go for a burton, because the school's need is
>greater.
I'm going ahead and responding to this post since the second post in
which you felt it necessary to repeat this same basic criticism in
more detail was swallowed by my news server and I had to read it using
Dejanews.
You are of course correct that railing at the "evil private school" is
of little use, and I have apologized for taking that tack. I did so
only in relating Mr. Ellison's own opinion and I think perhaps I have
taken enough flack for that at this point.
>As does making out (and the post certainly does so) that it should be
>saved because Harlan lives there. I suspect Harlan would have a hissy
>fit if he saw how that message was constructed.
As I just recently stated, the message was a quicky to get the word
out and was not intended to serve as a call to arms or to deflect
controversy. I submit that while it did not do the job you would like
of convincing the skeptical to jump on the bandwagon it did get the
word out.
I actually did call Harlan and explain what I said and gave the gist
of the criticism of my message. He did have a fit (sans hissing), and
I'll post his response tomorrow (we had fax problems today). It may
surprise you that the "fit" was not directed at me.
As you question the job I've done here and question my representation
of Harlan in your latter message, I invite those who have his ear on
this newsgroup to call him and let him know about this and ask how he
feels about the way I have represented him on the Internet.
>I do happen to think the land should be saved. But that's because of
>the land, and how precious it is in terms of it's placement and history.
>Not because Harlan lives there, or because the school is posh.
Great, have you sent your letter yet?
Dan Goodman
1) I recall reading that Harlan Ellison has stated publicly that he is not
and never was an sf writer. (As distinguished from a writer who has
written science fiction?)
2) I believe it's a while since Ellison was considered (by himself and/or
others) to be part of organized sf fandom.
Is this correct?
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Rick Wyatt
Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
>Possibly not, and you will note that I did have my own question
>in this regard. I think it is likely that Mr. Wyatt oversimplified
>his case, leaving out some details such as that it wasn't only
>Harlan that was pleading this case, but other people in the
>been another data point.
In actuality, I presented the data I had. My intention was not to
present a case to the internet community, but to let them know that
Harlan was asking for help with this. I called him up the morning
after the appearance and mentioned I was putting a news entry up with
the basics of his request on the Snyder show, and that I would also
copy it to a few newsgroups. He felt this would be largely useful to
folks in the LA area who would be specifically interested, and that
others who have helped the Ellisons out in the past (for example when
the earthquake hit) might be disposed to do so now as well.
The post was intended not to build a convincing argument or to serve
as the focal point of a debate about the relative merit of schools and
natural resources, but instead to get the word out.
I've tried my best to research and answer questions as they came up,
but to be frank I don't think I'm unwarranted in categorizing the
response for the most part as mocking and/or mean-spirited.
I have posted requests from Harlan in the past, and presented about
the same level of detail. However, these were not controversial in
the slightest and it appears inevitable that controversy WILL be
raised in response to a post involving Harlan Ellison where such is
possible.
>Note that I'm not one to hide my spleen under a bushel, as witness
>some of my recent posts, but I think we've whipped this particular
>horse so much that further whippings will simply make it lie
>down.
I see little further merit in continuing the existing threads aside
from keeping promises I have currently made. It appears we've reached
the point of diminishing returns and I doubt there are enough people
who are leaning one way or the other to make continue effort on either
side of much use. I have spent quite enough time in my life chasing
debate for debate's sake to continue.
I am certain there are people who will categorize this (and no doubt
in a cutting, sarcastic, and/or insulting way) as a cop-out. Feel
free, at least it will help keep those teeth sharp.
I'm also not interested in getting into a debate as to why this is or
what people's motives might be as that is one of those circular
arguments that winds up making a too-long thread like this ten times
as bad. I think Usenet is spectacularly useful for the sharing of
information and the relating of anecdotes and stories, but I've never
seen it serve as a good vehicle for controversial discussion and
debate. The noise-to-signal ratio is just too high.
This is the first time I've stuck my neck out significantly far on the
fandom groups and you can be assured I have learned exactly what that
buys someone who is unprepared for the people who are sharpening their
knives just WAITING for that to happen. I've also learned to expect
to be questioned probingly and specifically on practically EVERYTHING.
You can wait until the next time I show up in these parts and judge
whether I have taken these lessons to heart...
Rick Wyatt
censu...@aol.com (CensusGrrl) wrote:
>I'm on the East Coast, and infer that this issue may have been discussed
>extensively in local newspapers. I'd like to see the perspectives and coverage
>of this issue that must be available from other participants or journalists
>covering the story. Can you point me in the direction of further resources for
>information about the facts of this park dispute?
Hey, censusgrrl (did I use the right number of "r"s? I've gotten in
trouble for accidentally mispelling names in the past)-
Wanted to let you know we had fax problems today and the pages Susan
Ellison sent me were scarfed up or otherwise mangled. I'm getting a
resend tomorrow and will post the information then. I'll also post a
brief message from Harlan about the controversy. At that point, I'm
quit of this. You'll excuse me, but while I am interested in
forwarding the cause my recent experiences in this corner of the Net
have convinced me the value of effort here has pretty much plateaued.
Joel Rosenberg
In article <359318fb...@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net says...
>
>Morgan <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Making statements about the school just confuses the issue. Especially
>>in the way you construct the message. You invite the reader to think
>>that if it was a poor, underprivaleged school, in dire of need of space,
>>then the land could go for a burton, because the school's need is
>>greater.
>
>I'm going ahead and responding to this post since the second post in
>which you felt it necessary to repeat this same basic criticism in
>more detail was swallowed by my news server and I had to read it using
>Dejanews.
>
>You are of course correct that railing at the "evil private school" is
>of little use,
And perhaps has other flaws, as well?
> and I have apologized for taking that tack. I did so
>only in relating Mr. Ellison's own opinion and I think perhaps I have
>taken enough flack for that at this point.
And perhaps you have, perhaps you haven't. I guess that's kind of a "dealer's
choice" sort of thing.
>
>>As does making out (and the post certainly does so) that it should be
>>saved because Harlan lives there. I suspect Harlan would have a hissy
>>fit if he saw how that message was constructed.
>
>As I just recently stated, the message was a quicky to get the word
>out and was not intended to serve as a call to arms
Do you really mean that? Do you really mean that the message entitled HELP
HARLAN ELLISON SAVE WATERSHED LAND FROM DEVELOPERS in which the
readers are implored to engage in a letter-writing campaign to HELP HARLAN
ELLISON SAVE this particular WATERSHED LAND that is, apparently a
park across the street from him FROM a school's DEVELOPERS was anything
other than a call to arms?
>or to deflect
>controversy.
Well, yeah, I don't think you intended it to deflect controversy.
>I submit that while it did not do the job you would like
>of convincing the skeptical to jump on the bandwagon it did get the
>word out.
>
>I actually did call Harlan and explain what I said and gave the gist
>of the criticism of my message. He did have a fit (sans hissing), and
>I'll post his response tomorrow (we had fax problems today). It may
>surprise you that the "fit" was not directed at me.
>
Doesn't surprise me at all, but it may come as a shock to those who know Mr.
Ellison better. Or not.
Ray Radlein
mike weber wrote:
>
> Sometime around 25 Jun 1998 16:35:25 GMT, Loren Joseph MacGregor
> <lmac...@efn.org> opined:
>
> >: Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
> >
> >: >Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> >: >>
> >: >> On the other hand, Mr. Ellison does have a history of
> >: >> striking up the band, and suggesting that everybody within
> >: >> hearing has a moral obligation to jump on his latest
> >: >> bandwagon. Does anybody remember the name of that gasoline
> >: >> additive...?
> >: >
> >: >"Fire"?
> >: >
> >: Bolonium concentrate?
> >
> >and the private Ellison. The public Ellison assumes that he is
> >performing, and does shtick, much like a vaudeville comedian.
> >too far into poking sticks into Rick Wyatt and, by extension,
> >Harlan, just to see how far the frogs will jump?
> >
> To be honest, this far down this cascade i wasn't even thinking
> "Harlan" when i typed my response to Ray...
And I was simply thinking of the almost inevitable result of any usenet
discussion of Harlan Ellison ("He's just like Heinlein, only alive").
Joel Rosenberg
In article <359329...@learnlink.emory.edu>, r...@learnlink.emory.edu
says...
>
>And I was simply thinking of the almost inevitable result of any usenet
>discussion of Harlan Ellison ("He's just like Heinlein, only alive").
I'm croggled. What is there about Ellison that's at all reminiscent of Heinlein?
Ray Radlein
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>
> r...@learnlink.emory.edu says...
> >
> >And I was simply thinking of the almost inevitable result of any
> >usenet discussion of Harlan Ellison ("He's just like Heinlein,
> >only alive").
>
> I'm croggled. What is there about Ellison that's at all
> reminiscent of Heinlein?
Any sensible discussion of either of them disintigrates immediately upon
contact with usenet.
The *difference* is that all Heinlein discussions devolve into "Gun
Control" arguments, whereas all Ellison discussions devolve into "Wotta
Rat Bastard" arguments.
Doug Berry
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:01:41 GMT, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman)
wrote:
>1) I recall reading that Harlan Ellison has stated publicly that he is not
>and never was an sf writer. (As distinguished from a writer who has
>written science fiction?)
>
>2) I believe it's a while since Ellison was considered (by himself and/or
>others) to be part of organized sf fandom.
"Repent ye, Harlan Ellison"
Say science-fiction's dead
But he keeps writing more
And calls it fantasy instead
He's retired three times this year
But he'll return again
If you offer him an award,
A Galaxy or Nebula,
If you offer him an award
Read Larry Niven's story about "Harlan's Hugo" sometime. There
is a reason why many people find it very hard to take Ellison
seriously.
--
Douglas E. Berry dbe...@hooked.net
San Francisco Eccentric-in-Training
http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/
David Goldfarb
In article <6mrl93$lvi$1...@blackice.winternet.com>,
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
)Does anybody
)remember the name of that gasoline additive...?
Seeing as nobody has given this a straight answer, and that
this kind of question nags at me -- "F-310". (Luckily my copies
of the _Glass Teat_ books are on an actual shelf instead of in boxes.)
David Goldfarb <*>|"...encountering useless and ephemeral information
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |through compulsive science fiction reading and the
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |use of prodigious memory faculties for the arcane
aste...@slip.net |and irrelevant somehow strikes me as borderline."
| -- Edwin Thorpe
Morgan
In this post <359318fb...@nnrp2.crl.com>, Rick Wyatt <rwyatt.nospa
m...@menagerie.removeme.net> said:
>As you question the job I've done here and question my representation
>of Harlan in your latter message, I invite those who have his ear on
>this newsgroup to call him and let him know about this and ask how he
>feels about the way I have represented him on the Internet.
Rick, I pointed out you were doing neither Harlan, nor yourself, any
favours by the way the message was constructed.
That you've taken this in the same vein as some of the more aggressive
and sarcarstic posts made, says more about how aggressive and sarcastic
some of the posts were, than what I said.
The post was badly constructed. Period. Harlan came in for a lot of
crap in here, because of the badly constructe post. I was defending
him, and pointing out your wording wasn't helping. Period.
--
Morgan
"Come to the edge." he said. They said "We are afraid." "Come
to the edge." he said. They came. He pushed them...and they flew.
Morgan
In this post <35930e80...@nnrp2.crl.com>, Rick Wyatt <rwyatt.nospa
m...@menagerie.removeme.net> said:
>I have posted requests from Harlan in the past, and presented about
>the same level of detail. However, these were not controversial in
>the slightest and it appears inevitable that controversy WILL be
>raised in response to a post involving Harlan Ellison where such is
>possible.
This is just abrogating responsibility, Rick. You have indeed posted in
the past, and those posts have been useful. It's from those posts that
I know how valuable the land is, intrinsically. It's interesting we've
lost Edgar Rice Burroughs in this debate.
BUt you can't walk away from this fuss and say "Aw shucks, you're just
getting at Harlan." Certainlly, a minority of people were. But most of
us were responding to the innanities of your post - you *shouted* at us,
for Gawd's sake.
Get off the 'you're all just persecuting me 'cos I like Harlan'
bandwagon. You're being got at because the post was naff. Just say,
"Naff post, here, I've replaced it with a good one." And go write the
good one, and let this boring little teacup storm die. You can't come
into rasseff and not expect to be held accountable for what you say in
here.
And for Gawd's sake quit botehring Harlan with it. Like he needs the
grief.
Morgan
In this post <35954034...@news.wenet.net>, Doug Berry
<dbe...@hooked.net> said:
>Read Larry Niven's story about "Harlan's Hugo" sometime. There
>is a reason why many people find it very hard to take Ellison
>seriously.
and equally good reasons why many of his not only respect him, but
thinks he's a perfectly nice human being.
Can we stop the Harlan bashing? It's pointless, and petty, and using up
energy and tempers.
Some people like the guy, some don't. This is different from the rest
of the human race?
mike weber
Sometime around Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:55:40 -0400, Ray Radlein
<r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
>mike weber wrote:
>> To be honest, this far down this cascade i wasn't even thinking
>> "Harlan" when i typed my response to Ray...
>
>And I was simply thinking of the almost inevitable result of any usenet
>discussion of Harlan Ellison ("He's just like Heinlein, only alive").
>
"...and shorter,"
mike weber
Sometime around Fri, 26 Jun 1998 02:06:40 -0400, Ray Radlein
<r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>> I'm croggled. What is there about Ellison that's at all
>> reminiscent of Heinlein?
>
>Any sensible discussion of either of them disintigrates immediately upon
>contact with usenet.
>
>
>The *difference* is that all Heinlein discussions devolve into "Gun
>Control" arguments, whereas all Ellison discussions devolve into "Wotta
>Rat Bastard" arguments.
>
You forgot the "Oh, no he -isn't!"- responses.
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
Appropos of nothing in particular, my friend at St. Martin's Press in NYC
tells the story of the time Harlan shopped The Last Dangerous Visions
there.
(Back when LDV still had virtually all of the commissioned stories in it.
It was going to be a BIG book.)
Everyone involved at SMP was willing to publish the book, until Harlan
demanded that it be one volume.
SMP did not have the bindery facilities to bind a single volume that thick.
SMP _was_ prepared to do a two volume set, boxed even!
It seems that, in the opinion of a couple of folks there at the time, is
that by insisting that it be one volume, a project that was, at the time,
impossible for SMP to attempt, Harlan was able to point out that he WAS
trying to get it published, and was able to avoid actually having to edit
it and write intros and the like.
Of the several times I've seen him at cons, he seemed to be a VERY prickly
individual, very hair-trigger and the like.
It must be quite sad to be so ever ready to take offense at the slightest
and most unintentional of slights.
--
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
"Gadzooks!", quoth I, "But here's a saucy bawd!"
I, Libertine
by Fredrick R. Ewing
<A HREF="HTTP://WWW.GIS.NET/~CHT"/A>
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
: >mike weber wrote:
: >> To be honest, this far down this cascade i wasn't even thinking
: >> "Harlan" when i typed my response to Ray...
: >
: >And I was simply thinking of the almost inevitable result of any usenet
: >discussion of Harlan Ellison ("He's just like Heinlein, only alive").
: "...and shorter,"
-sigh- And I'm shorter than Harlan Ellison. So?
-- LJM
Loren Joseph MacGregor
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Doug Berry <dbe...@hooked.net> wrote:
: Read Larry Niven's story about "Harlan's Hugo" sometime. There
: is a reason why many people find it very hard to take Ellison
: seriously.
And, capsulated in your post, is the reason harlan may find
it difficult to take science fiction fandom seriously.
Harlan is a very good writer; sometimes this gets lost in
the Myth of Harlan.
-- LJM
mike weber
Sometime around 26 Jun 1998 15:43:24 GMT, Loren Joseph MacGregor
<lmac...@efn.org> opined:
>In rec.arts.sf.fandom, mike weber <emsh...@aol.com> wrote:
You are? ((Geeze))
No -- just a usual part of such discussions... I didn't even mean it
insultingly. If i had, there would have been adverbs.
mike weber
Sometime around 26 Jun 1998 15:46:22 GMT, Loren Joseph MacGregor
<lmac...@efn.org> opined:
>Harlan is a very good writer; sometimes this gets lost in
>the Myth of Harlan.
>
Absolutely. No argument -at all-.
Even those times ((not at present)) when i've been in my most
fulminant "Sawed off little..." phases re: H. Ellison, i have never
stopped being awed by the quality of his writing.
Rick Wyatt
dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>1) I recall reading that Harlan Ellison has stated publicly that he is not
>and never was an sf writer. (As distinguished from a writer who has
>written science fiction?)
Harlan hates the term "sci-fi" and prefers to be known as simply a
writer. He has written many stories which would be considered to be
in the genre science fiction.
>2) I believe it's a while since Ellison was considered (by himself and/or
>others) to be part of organized sf fandom.
Harlan still attends several conventions each year and otherwise
appears at signings and other events.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: <lmac...@efn.org> opined:
: >In rec.arts.sf.fandom, mike weber <emsh...@aol.com> wrote:
: >: Sometime around Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:55:40 -0400, Ray Radlein
: >: <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
: >
: >: >mike weber wrote:
: >
: >: >> To be honest, this far down this cascade i wasn't even thinking
: >: >> "Harlan" when i typed my response to Ray...
: >: >
: >: >And I was simply thinking of the almost inevitable result of any usenet
: >: >discussion of Harlan Ellison ("He's just like Heinlein, only alive").
: >
: >: "...and shorter,"
: >
: >-sigh- And I'm shorter than Harlan Ellison. So?
: >
: You are? ((Geeze))
: No -- just a usual part of such discussions... I didn't even mean it
: insultingly. If i had, there would have been adverbs.
Oh, I know. But this very type of exchange was what prompted
my first (and so far only) written exchange with Harlan. I
have to agree with him that short jokes get old pretty fast.
Like jokes about names, everyone who makes them seems to feel
they're making them for the first time. I got as tired of
short jokes as I did of jokes about Lorna Doone.
But I'll climb off my soapbox now. (I needed it so I could
look you in the eyes when I said that.)
-- LJM
Rick Wyatt
Morgan <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Get off the 'you're all just persecuting me 'cos I like Harlan'
>bandwagon. You're being got at because the post was naff. Just say,
>"Naff post, here, I've replaced it with a good one." And go write the
>good one, and let this boring little teacup storm die. You can't come
>into rasseff and not expect to be held accountable for what you say in
>here.
It's my opinion (yours may differ) that although some folks like
yourself gave constructive criticism, a few others seemed to be
involved merely for the taste of the blood. While my post may have
been 'naff', can you honestly go back and read all the responses,
especially the responses to the answers I gave in good faith to the
questions asked, and tell me it's all merely because of an original
post that wasn't all that it could be?
I do expect to be held accountable for what I say. You will, however,
excuse me for saying that while there are some folks questioning me
because they are truly interested you've also got about the average
Usenet share of self-righteous pricks, and the sight of the name
"Harlan Ellison" seems to have put a bee in their bonnet.
>And for Gawd's sake quit botehring Harlan with it. Like he needs the
>grief.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have formed an image of me as
some fan who caught the Tom Snyder show and decided to institute his
own little Net crusade for his beloved Harlan. In actuality this post
was made with Harlan's knowledge and at his behest and we have been in
frequent communication on this and a number of other issues. You are
correct, however, that neither one of us needs this grief.
Under the original thread, I am going to post a series of documents
the Ellisons have sent me which should represent the total knowledge I
have about the matter. I'll be happy to jump in and discuss the issue
in a friendly fashion but I will no longer respond to posts made in a
mocking, insulting, sarcastic, or antagonistic manner. I know that's
an unusual stance to take on Usenet, but hey...
Dan Goodman
In article <359406b5....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
Rick Wyatt <rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net> wrote:
>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>>1) I recall reading that Harlan Ellison has stated publicly that he is not
>>and never was an sf writer. (As distinguished from a writer who has
>>written science fiction?)
>
>Harlan hates the term "sci-fi"
Which has _less than nothing_ to do with what I wrote. I wrote _science
fiction_. I did not use the term "sci-fi", I did not refer to it in any
way, and I don't see what Mr. Ellison's reaction to the term has to do
with his reaction to being called, classified, or whatever as a _science
fiction_ writer.
and prefers to be known as simply a
>writer. He has written many stories which would be considered to be
>in the genre science fiction.
Question: When did he decide that he preferred not to be considered a
science fiction writer?
>>2) I believe it's a while since Ellison was considered (by himself and/or
>>others) to be part of organized sf fandom.
>
>Harlan still attends several conventions each year and otherwise
>appears at signings and other events.
Aha! I think I see part of your problem in communicating here: you don't
know what "fandom" means, as used in the name of rec.arts.sf.fandom.
Otherwise, it's unlikely that you would consider doing signings as being
"part of organized sf fandom."
Unless, of course, these signings were organized by and for sf fans
(members of the subculture organized sf fandom) rather than by publishers,
publicity people, bookstores, etc.
As for attending conventions -- there are a lot of people who don't
consider themselves fans, and aren't considered fans, who attend cons.
(Heck, some of them are insulted by the very idea that they might possibly
want to be fans. This is not hyperbole.)
Rick Wyatt
censu...@aol.com (CensusGrrl) wrote:
>I'm on the East Coast, and infer that this issue may have been discussed
>extensively in local newspapers. I'd like to see the perspectives and coverage
>of this issue that must be available from other participants or journalists
>covering the story. Can you point me in the direction of further resources for
>information about the facts of this park dispute?
Back again, with a multi-post relay of the information I have
received. The first is a recap of the recent activity between the
Buckley School (818-783-1610) and the Sherman Oaks Homeowner's
Association (PO Box 5223, Sherman Oaks, CA 91413, president Richard H.
Close) on the subject of the expansion:
====================================================================
The Sherman Oaks Homeowner's Association met June 25, 1998 with Los
Angeles councilman Mike Feuer to discuss the Buckley School's Plans:
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THIS MEETING
April '96--Buckley convened an informal meeting with neighbors
bordering school to explain their need to expand for their survival.
A second meeting was held with an expanded group of neighbors at the
school and then representatives appeared at meeting of SOHA to
present their master plan. The plan presented at all these meetings
was for an increase in enrollment to 900 from the existing cap of
750 students, minimal construction and a mitigated traffic plan
which was incomplete.
Because of this proposal, a committe was formed by SOHA to review
Buckley's past compliance with the existing CUP and the effects the
new proposal would have on the community.
May 96--The committee was informed that the school could not amend
existing CUP but would have to apply for a new CUP. Meetings
planned with representatives of school and architect were cancelled
by the school.
May '96-Oct '97--Meetings of the committee continued and contacts
with the council office and planning commission were maintained.
The committee investigated many violations by the school of the
existing CUP including excess enrollment, failure to submit
accurate census to the planning commission, continuation of severe
traffic problems and violation of calendar.
Dec '96--A letter was submitted to the planning commission
documenting violations of the existing CUP by Buckley.
July '97--The planning commission, after an exchange of several
letters between the commission and attorneys for the school
notified Buckley that they must reduce enrollment to 750 students
and complete a traffic audit as required by condition 22 which was
adopted in July, 1987.
Oct. '97--Committee is invited to meeting of newly formed
neighborhood liaison committee from the Buckley School to hear
presentation of proposed building expansion and traffic mitigation
plan. CUP application submitted to our committee at this time was
for an increase to 975 students and 68,700 sq. ft. of new
construction. This meeting took place on October 27 and the
application was submitted to planning commission five days later.
The tarffic mitigation plan had not been completed.
Jan. '98--Meeting was held at council office. Committee was
represented by eight members because of limitation of space in the
office. Focus of the meeting was on the necessity to get Buckley
to comply with existing CUP based on past performance by the school.
After that meeting a letter was sent asking Buckley to withdraw the
new application and work to comply with the existing CUP.
Feb '98--As word spread about the massive construction proposed and
negative impact on the environment of the canyon an outpouring of
opposition arose to all of the expansion. Many new members
volunteered to server on the committee. On February 26, the SOHA
committee was invited to another meeting with the Buckley liaison
committee to hear Sam Ross of Crain and Associates explain his
traffic study and mitigation plan. At that meeting, many of the new
members of the committee were in attendance and they expressed their
concerns not only about traffic but also about the huge amount of
construction planned for the canyon. After this meeting, the SOHA
committee realized that its previous goals were inadequate and a
tougher stand was necessary.
May '98--At monthly meeting of SOHA a committee report was presented
outlining the opposition to the expansion of Buckley School and
petitions were circulated for support of this position. Over 150
members present at the meeting signed the petition.
June '98--In a letter of June 19, 1998, a copy of which was sent to
the councilman, Jan Seligman and Jim Higgins acknowledge that the
school will not undertake to correct the existing traffic problems
unless they can implement their master plan. The committee position
is that the traffic problems must be eliminated to be in compliance
with the existing CUP.
Signed by LEE WILLIS and HENRY LIPSON, June 25, 1998
====================================================================
Rick Wyatt
jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel Rosenberg) wrote:
>>I've asked Susan Ellison to send me a list of the projected new
>>buildings and developments and their names. I'll post it tomorrow.
>
>Please do -- and the sooner the better.
[requisite sarcastic baiting snipped]
I'm afraid the information I got from the Ellisons did not have the
names of the proposed buildings, but it did contain a map showing the
proposed construction:
A new performing arts center (The Roy Disney Pavilion)
A new 2-story science building
A new set of of what looks like tennis courts
A new middle school complex
A second floor on one building for special classes
Two new smaller structures added onto existing pavilions which are
unidentified on the map.
The Buckley School can be contacted at (818)783-1610 for proposed
building names and other information.
I'll also post the rest of the information I got in subsequent
messages to this same thread.
Rick Wyatt
censu...@aol.com (CensusGrrl) wrote:
>I'm on the East Coast, and infer that this issue may have been discussed
>extensively in local newspapers. I'd like to see the perspectives and coverage
>of this issue that must be available from other participants or journalists
>covering the story. Can you point me in the direction of further resources for
>information about the facts of this park dispute?
Here are a couple past news items which might shed some light on the
area's historical significance. The Edgar Rice Burroughs newsgroup
might be a good resource for further information:
=================
HE given Burroughs Bibliophiles award
This weekend at their annual meeting, the Edgar Rice Burroughs society
gave Harlan their annual Bibliophiles award. Harlan helped save 200
acres of watershed land (chronicled elsewhere in this newspage) from
developers, the very land where Burroughs used to ride and hike and
the inspiration for much of his work. Ellison also campaigned for a
park to be commissioned for Burroughs in the area.
========================
YOU CAN HELP MAKE EDGAR RICE BURROUGHS MEMORIAL PARK A REALITY!
Author Harlan Ellison and local conservationists have recently rescued
Oak Forest Canyon in Sherman Oaks, CA from developers.
Buckley High School purchased the land south of the school and has
offered it to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy in exchange for
an oak grove near the school.
Harlan Ellison, who has fought back developers in the area for years,
would like to create a 24-acre park in Sherman Oaks canyon dedicated
to the memory of Edgar Rice Burroughs. ERB is said to have frequented
the little canyon, riding on horseback and picnicking there. The area
is also the inspiration for Tarzana.
Now, this is where you come in - this park simply won't happen without
your help. Harlan, along with naturalist Arnold Newman, are seeking
small donations, $5 to $10, to help build a docent's station at the
top of Oak Forest Canyon. The station would include panels
illustrating the paleontological history of Fossil Ridge and a small
museum of Edgar Rice Burrough's work.
If enough money is raised, Ellison would also like to erect a
life-size statue of Burroughs in the park on a black-marble pedestal,
with another of Tarzan alongside. Ellison also says all of "ERBdom",
the world's Edgar Rice Burroughs bibliophiles, would picnic on the
property next May during their upcoming every-five-years gathering.
If you've got a little money left after Christmas shopping, or perhaps
received a little in your stocking, whatever you could give could make
a big difference in making this park happen. And if you're still
looking for that perfect gift, or you've got the post-Xmas blues, what
better way to show your love or perk yourself up than doing something
for the planet and helping remember an author who has been a joy and
inspiration to several generations?
HOW TO HELP:
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has set up as trust account for
private donations to help create the Edgar Rice Burroughs Memorial
Park. To contribue, send a check to the ERB Memorial Fund at:
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority
2600 Franklin Canyon Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Also, please download a copy of this notice and distribute it widely,
anywhere you don't see it, to help spread the word about this
important project. Thank you!
sources: Harlan Ellison, LA Times (December 11).
Rick Wyatt
censu...@aol.com (CensusGrrl) wrote:
>The boy has cried Wolf. I'm looking for evidence of the wolf.
The boy has been doing some serious typing. Here is some more
information for you which may explain exactly what the school is
planning to do and the impact on the neighborhood...
Letter from Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association to Councilman
Mike Feuer on June 7, 1998 re: Buckley School expansion:
Dear Councilman Feuer,
As a[sic] long-time residents of Camino de la Cumbre/Oak Forest
Canyon and the neighborhoods which surround Buckley School we, like
many of our neighbors, would hate to see this beautiful canyon
overwhelmed by the *68,700 square feet* of new structures which
The Buckley School is proposing to construct in the canyon.
We are also the members of the homeowners committee that met with
you last November, and are unanimously opposed to the school
expanion.
Our most serious concerns are as follows:
1. Further development of an already intensively developed site
will dramatically reduce the green buffer which now exists between
the school and the neighborhood to the west. We appreciate that you
have protected Deervale-Stone Canyon so that its hiking trails and
natural beauty can be preserved. However, we are concerned that the
beautiful forest along Camino de le Cambre which borders Buckley,
and which is enjoyed by hikers everyday, will be cut down if the
proposed new middle school and science building are built.
2. Buckley has indicated that they are planning to increase
their student population by approximately 20%, yet their proposed
plan shows more than a 100% increase in classroom area. According
to their own plan they plan to add approximately 34,000 square feet
of classrooms (a new middle school, science building, and a 2nd
floor and adjoining building to their elementary school) to their
approximately 29,000 square feet of existing classrooms.
3. The proposed expansion will ahve serious topgraphical impact
on the canyon with substantial grading taking place immediately
adjacent to Fossil Ridge Park.
4. When the Fossil Ridge Park issue first came up for review,
over thirteen thousand signatures were gathered to designate the
area to Buckley's immediate south as permanent open space. There is
clearly strong public sentiment to preserve the canyon area as is.
5. The Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations and The
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy have both expressed concern about
the proposed new construction. Responding to the public sentiment,
the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has listed Oak Forest Canyon
on its primary work program for acquisition in order to preserve
this area for the public to appreciate and enjoy.
6. Buckley made a specific promise to the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy and the community to dedicate their portion
of Oak Forest Canyon to the Conservancy, and to this date they have
not. Further, as their plans filed with the Los Angeles City
Planning Commission seem to indicate, this land area is being used
to justify more new building area.
7. Like many sites in the canyons and hillsides of Los Angeles
much of Buckley's site is unbuildable. The flat land north of the
football field is already developed, so the new buildings are
designed to be built on hillsides or as second floor additions.
8. Buckley is one of very few schools that has a single campus
that runs from preschool to the twelfth grade. This means that the
single campus hosts activities in the evening and on weekends for
the preschool, elementary school, middle school, and high school.
It also means that Buckley needs a large staff to accomodate its
students.
9. The Buckley campus sits at the end of a residential
cul-de-sac street that has yet to overcome serious, continuing
traffic issues related to the campus. The construction of 68,700
square feet, and the subsequent traffic increase that will
unavoidably occur with day-to-day access, as well as the on going
weekend and evening traffic, is clearly much more than the small
residential streets which border the campus can possibly bear.
Furthermore, the inconvenience and disruption (noise, trucks, and
dust) that is amount of new construction will cause to the immediate
area is considerable.
10. By some form of convoluted logic, the school which is now
98,000 square feet is proposing to add 68,700 new square feet, while
actually reducing the number of on-site parking spaces. Included
in the 68,700 new square feet of buildings is a new 24,000 square
foot auditorium with approximately 600 fixed seats. This use alone
would require 100 new parking spaces under the zoning code.
11. The Traffic Study which the school has submitted, offers a
series of suggestions for alleviating the problems which will be
caused by the increase in traffic. It is clear that all the
proposed options may facilitate traffic flow to and from Buckley,
but will tremendously restrict the normal flow of traffic for
residents in the immediate area. The proposed traffic lights on
Beverly Glen and Valley Vista could potentially bring more traffic
into the neighborhood by making it more convenient for commuters
to use Valley Vista as easy access to Beverly Glen.
12. Plans for car-pooling, shuttle buses and on-site circulation
improvements which the school has proposed, are items that should be
instituted in any case, to meet requirements which are not being met
now as part of the existing C.U.P.
13. Another factor in regard to the traffic has to do with the
back gate. According to the C.U.P. this is only to be used by
service vehicles. It has been open for long periods of time on
Saturdays and Sundays and in the evening for passenger vehicles.
The additional traffic causes a hazardous situation on Camino de la
Cumbre which is a narrow, windy street.
14. Furtehr we would like your office to consider the fact that
The Buckley School is now quite large in comparison to other schools
in the area, with 790 students, and are proposing an additional 199.
Buckley is presently larger than Oakwood, which has 450 students on
one campus and 350 on another. It is large than The Country School
and much larger than Marlborough which has under 400 students.
Buckley is about the same size as Campbell Hall. Brentwood has 695
students on its largest site and 300 plus on its other campus.
Harvard Westlake has approximately 725 on its middle school campus
and 800 on its upper school campus. These are successful,
competitive schools. Oakwood, Campbell Hall, and The Country
School, Brentwood and the upper campus of Harvard Westlake are all
on major streets, not on a small neighborhood lane. Buckley does
not need to expand to 950-1000 students to be successful.
15. Legislators including Governors, Senators, Congressman,
Assemblyman, and Councilmen have all energetically lobbies for the
preservation of Fossil Ridge and its environment. Our community
looks eagerly to your office to maintain what has taken a quarter
of a century to establish.
We hope your office will seriously address this neighborhood's
concern and oppose the planned expansion which can only increase
traffic, noise, removal of trees and greenery, and result in the
further deterioration of our neighborhood and canyon.
It is our strong hope that your office will consider all of the
issues we have raised and join with the neighborhood in their
efforts to have The Buckley School withdraw its application for
expansion and comply with their existing CUP.
Thank you very much for your consideration to this matter. We look
forward to our meeting with you at 3852 Camino de Solana at 5:00pm
on June 25th.
Sincerely,
For the SOHA Buckley Committee.
Morgan
In this post <35940748....@nnrp2.crl.com>, Rick Wyatt <rwyatt.nosp
a...@menagerie.removeme.net> said:
>It's my opinion (yours may differ) that although some folks like
>yourself gave constructive criticism, a few others seemed to be
>involved merely for the taste of the blood. While my post may have
>been 'naff', can you honestly go back and read all the responses,
>especially the responses to the answers I gave in good faith to the
>questions asked, and tell me it's all merely because of an original
>post that wasn't all that it could be?
Oh no, I fully accept the nastiness and stupidities that came out. It's
one reason why I refrained from saying anything, for a while. And I did
say something about that, somewhere in one of the posts.
>
>I do expect to be held accountable for what I say. You will, however,
>excuse me for saying that while there are some folks questioning me
>because they are truly interested you've also got about the average
>Usenet share of self-righteous pricks, and the sight of the name
>"Harlan Ellison" seems to have put a bee in their bonnet.
Oh yes. Just because we try to have quality standards about how posts
are written in here, don't mean we don't have jerks posting them.
>
>>And for Gawd's sake quit botehring Harlan with it. Like he needs the
>>grief.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have formed an image of me as
>some fan who caught the Tom Snyder show and decided to institute his
>own little Net crusade for his beloved Harlan. In actuality this post
>was made with Harlan's knowledge and at his behest and we have been in
>frequent communication on this and a number of other issues. You are
>correct, however, that neither one of us needs this grief.
Not what I thought at all. You are someone who expends a lot of useful
energy with Harlan, and the Net. And I've been the pleased recipient of
many of your posts. But this one was just *terrible*. I had no doubt
Harlan knew about the post - you wouldn't post using his name unless
that were so. But I doubt he saw the post before it went out.
You often mediate, as I said, between Harlan and the Net. But in this
case, much of the flack which arose was because of how bad the post was
- and Harlan may not have sufficient knowledge of the Net to be aware of
*how* annoying the post was. The shouting, for instance.
And apart from anything else, knowing how boringly nasty some people
seem to be as soon as you mention Harlan's name ...you should have known
better about the wording of the post! red rag to a bull!
>
>
>Under the original thread, I am going to post a series of documents
>the Ellisons have sent me which should represent the total knowledge I
>have about the matter. I'll be happy to jump in and discuss the issue
>in a friendly fashion but I will no longer respond to posts made in a
>mocking, insulting, sarcastic, or antagonistic manner. I know that's
>an unusual stance to take on Usenet, but hey...
Oh, you never know.... ;-)
Rick Wyatt
censu...@aol.com (CensusGrrl) wrote:
>"They want to increase their building space from 96,000 square feet to 167,000,
>which will expand their area into the greenspace that borders Fossil Ridge
>Park." According to the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy web site, the Buckley
>School is *donating* the "lower portion" of land associated with Oak Forest
>Canyon, described by the SMMC as an "Important cross-mountain habitat linkage
>adjacent to Fossil Ridge Park." How, if at all, does this donation of land *to*
>the Conservancy by the school fit into the "greenspace that borders Fossil
>Ridge Park"?
Here is a letter that may answer these questions:
=====================================
Letter from Arnold Newman, naturalist and executive director/founder
of the International Society for the Preservation of the Tropical
Rainforest, to John Diaz, Chief Acquisitions Officer of The Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy. Mr. Newman may be reach at
818-990-3333, the Conservancy at 310-589-3207:
=====================================
Dear John:
The establishment of Fossil Ridge State Park was a keystone landmark
in habitat and paleontological resource preservation for the city
of Los Angeles and State of California. The citizen benificiaries
of that park express both gratitude for the pivotal role the
Conservancy played in its acquisition and extend a heartfelt
welcome to you to our community as its most prominent landowner.
As you are well aware, Buckley School is contiguous to Fossil Ridge
Park on its western boundary and ia n obvious facet in its view
shed. When Buckley School entered its current site in Oak Forest
Canyon several decades ago, from its Woodman Avenue location in
the Valley, it worked constructively with our community to contain
its building footprint and height of structures and to preserve a
green buffer around almost its entire perimeter to insulate itself
from both sight and sound from an almost wilderness community.
From the onset, the city was understandably responsive to the
community's residents in narrowly admitting Buckley its occupancy
which, quite unique for a school, is nestled directly in the center
of a quiet, wooded, upscale single family residential settings. The
city fathers did so in the wisdom of a *Conditional Use Permit*.
Expressely because Buckley failed to heed so many of the essential
stipulations of its 1965 CUP, a hearing was held on July 9, 1987
which considered the revocation of its permit to operate a school
in its present location. As Buckley was found to be unresponsive
to the community in mitigating ongoing violations of its CUP in
regards to such substantial violations as noise and traffic, it was
provisionally allowed to remain on site but under a new and
necessarily more restrictive CUP.
Since that time, the school has operated with apparent disregard for
a number of its CUP restrictions, affecting a dozen neighborhood
streets which include traffic, parking, noise, exceeding its
maximum student enrollment, failure to file census reports for
exceeding permissible hours of operation and special events, much of
which were delineated in a correspondence of December 6, 1996 to the
City Planning Commission.
While flamboyantly failing to mitigate these trangressions, Buckley
has plans to expand its campus classroom area from a current
approximate 29,000 sq. ft. to 66,000 sq. ft. and total structure
area from a current 98,000 sq. ft. to 167,000 sq. ft. In fact, an
entirely new middle/junior high school. A Buckley parent reported
the school wished to increase classroom pupil count from 50 to 100
on an average course. Like so many other private schools, why is
Buckely not considering a dual campus?
The plan markedly encroaches on the very greenbelt that serves as
insulation, with buildings, some of them multi-storied. The
implementation of the plan would completely transform the character
of the subdued community, virtually rural in character, into one
completely dominated by the specter of the school.
It should be stated here that the community has accepted Buckley
School, has tried to be good neighbors, and the removal of the
school has certainly not been on our agenda. Yet, over the many
years the school has persisted in deluding the community regarding
its intentions to mitigate its problem with its neighbors.
Recently, it came to our attention that Buckley has been quite
consistent in that respect with its negotiations with the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy as well. As Oak Forest Canyon borders
Fossil Ridge Park to the west and contains much level terrain which
Fossil Ridge lacks and is appropriate for recreational activities,
it has been on the conservancy's acquisition list for a number of
years. As a number of development plans that were narrowly
defeated, our committee, the Oak Forest Canyon Task Force of the
Sherman Oaks Homeowner's Association, approached Buckley School
with a proposal. Simply stated, we proposed that Buckley School
purchase a key 15 acre parcel in the canyon to both prevent
development on it as well as a permanent buffer for the school and
Fossil Ridge and hold it sacrosanct in its wilderness state.
At this point, the Conservancy entered into the negotiations. As
the 15 acre parcel was not contiguous to Buckley School, Buckley
proposed that it purchase the parcel and trade it to the Conservancy
for a parcel within Fossil Ridge Park that bordered its football
field - the agreement prominently stipulated that the parcel would
be held by Buckley against development of any kind in perpetuity.
This agreement was brought before the Conservancy Board and formally
ratified. The purchase of the parcel was subsequently consumated.
As you have reported, since that time in 1995, Buckley has remained
evasive when repeatedly approached by you as conservation officer in
command of the Oak Forest Canyon aquisition. In December, 1997, in
a meeting with Walter Baumhoff, Buckley Headmaster, you were
informed by Mr. Baumhoff that Buckley wished to trade its 15 acre
parcel for an altogether differenct section of Fossil Ridge itself -
and he stated Buckley's intentions to build a classroom and
bathrooms on it. You reported being literally aghast at the
suggestion as well as Baumhoff's denial that the land swap agreement
formally mandated against development of any kind and was a matter
of documented public record.
At the same meeting, you questioned Mr. Baumhoff regarding the
school's proposed expansion and asked to see plans and its effect
on Fossil Ridge's view shed. While Mr. Baumhoff responded that
expansion was just in the talking state and no plans yet existed,
you discovered that formal plans and elevations were, in fact,
hanging on the wall in Mr. Baumhoff's office, next door to the room
in which you met.
Given the caliber dublicity with a State agency, the community feels
justified in excercising caution in our negotiation with the school
in regards to their proposed development.
We extend our appreciation to both Conservancy Board member Jerry
Danial and yourself for recently attending our committee meeting
and we embrace the suggestion that we schedule this matter on the
Conservancy agenda at its next public meeting to address the board.
Please distribute this correspondence to the board and inform me
of the agenda date.
I have forwarded copies of this correspondence to others long
involved in the preservation of Fossil Ridge and Oak Forest Canyon.
Sincerely,
Arnold Newman
Oak Forest Canyon Task Force
Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association
Rick Wyatt
dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>Rick Wyatt <rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net> wrote:
>>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>>>1) I recall reading that Harlan Ellison has stated publicly that he is not
>>>and never was an sf writer. (As distinguished from a writer who has
>>>written science fiction?)
>>Harlan hates the term "sci-fi"
>Which has _less than nothing_ to do with what I wrote. I wrote _science
>fiction_. I did not use the term "sci-fi", I did not refer to it in any
...and I have _less than nothing_ to say further to you, or anyone
else who can't be at least marginally polite. Good day.
Brenda Daverin
In article <n9Uk1.1704$P8.55...@ptah.visi.com>, dsg...@visi.com (Dan
Goodman) wrote:
> As for attending conventions -- there are a lot of people who don't
> consider themselves fans, and aren't considered fans, who attend cons.
> (Heck, some of them are insulted by the very idea that they might possibly
> want to be fans. This is not hyperbole.)
Quite. Some of them even work on conventions as staff or committee members.
--
Brenda Daverin
bdav...@best.com
"Usenet is just email with witnesses." -- Rob Hansen
Joel Rosenberg
In article <359406b5....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net says...
>
>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>>1) I recall reading that Harlan Ellison has stated publicly that he is not
>>and never was an sf writer. (As distinguished from a writer who has
>>written science fiction?)
>
>writer. He has written many stories which would be considered to be
>in the genre science fiction.
>
Many people do hate that there skiffy term. But that's not what Dan asked.
>>2) I believe it's a while since Ellison was considered (by himself and/or
>>others) to be part of organized sf fandom.
>
>Harlan still attends several conventions each year and otherwise
>appears at signings and other events.
So do many people who are not considered by themselves or others to be part of organized sf
fandom.
I don't, by the way, think there's anything wrong with not considering oneself to be part of
organized SF fandom. Jonas Salk never was, for example, but I don't think less of him for
that.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
: Question: When did he decide that he preferred not to be considered a
: science fiction writer?
I don't know, but I would suspect it would be related to the reasons
Kurt Vonnegut gave for not calling himself a science fiction writer:
"When it is called 'science fiction, it gets placed in the science
fiction section and sometimes get reordered; when it is not labeled
'science fiction,' it gets put in the literature section AND the
science fiction section, and sells many more copies." That's a
quasi-quote, by the way, as it's been years since I saw the
interview in question.
-- LJM
Dan Goodman
In article <35941aa1....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
>>>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>>>>1) I recall reading that Harlan Ellison has stated publicly that he is not
>>>>and never was an sf writer. (As distinguished from a writer who has
>>>>written science fiction?)
>>>Harlan hates the term "sci-fi"
>>fiction_. I did not use the term "sci-fi", I did not refer to it in any
>
>...and I have _less than nothing_ to say further to you, or anyone
>else who can't be at least marginally polite. Good day.
Oh, I _was_ minimally polite. I may also have been disrespectful and
mildly condescending, however.
Joel Rosenberg
In article <6mvhfj$ou$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
says...
>
>In article <6mrl93$lvi$1...@blackice.winternet.com>,
>Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>)Does anybody
>)remember the name of that gasoline additive...?
>
> Seeing as nobody has given this a straight answer, and that
>this kind of question nags at me -- "F-310". (Luckily my copies
>of the _Glass Teat_ books are on an actual shelf instead of in boxes.)
Thank you. I used to own copies, but I think they self-combusted at some
point.
Dan Goodman
In article <6n18gn$jmc$1...@blackice.winternet.com>,
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>In article <359406b5....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
>rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net says...
>>
>>>1) I recall reading that Harlan Ellison has stated publicly that he is not
>>>and never was an sf writer. (As distinguished from a writer who has
>>>written science fiction?)
>>
>>writer. He has written many stories which would be considered to be
>>in the genre science fiction.
>
>Many people do hate that there skiffy term. But that's not what Dan asked.
>
>>>2) I believe it's a while since Ellison was considered (by himself and/or
>>>others) to be part of organized sf fandom.
>>
>>Harlan still attends several conventions each year and otherwise
>>appears at signings and other events.
>
>So do many people who are not considered by themselves or others to be part of organized sf
>fandom.
>
>I don't, by the way, think there's anything wrong with not considering oneself to be part of
>organized SF fandom. Jonas Salk never was, for example, but I don't think less of him for
>that.
Nor do I consider anything wrong with it. However -- if Mr. Ellison is
not, why is a plea to help him appropriate in a newsgroup devoted to
organized sf fandom?
Rick Wyatt
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) wrote:
>Here is a letter that may answer these questions:
And finally, here is Harlan's response to all this claptrap, which I
finally received today:
HARLAN RESPONDS TO THE PINHEADS:
If I were to appear on the right hand of God, and bring to the
teeming masses peace, plenty, the cure for cancer, and the return
of Courtesy in Our Time, there would no doubt be a few of you
imbeciles--and you know which of you I mean, and which of you I do
_not_ mean--who would get on the Web and try to cobble up some
insidious scam I was working. You are mean, small, ugly souls, and
if I had a fly swatter big enough...
The Buckley School expansion is a complex and distressing matter to
the entire neighborhood in which I live. That the land we're trying
to preserve is in my backyard, is incidental. It is why _I_ am
involved, personally, as some of _you_ are involved in serious
environmental matters in _your_ backyard. But my personality is not
the issue, so we can all do very nicely without a bunch of idiot fan
and semi-pro types demanding this and demanding that, and seeking
information that will do nothing for the problem.
That is to say: I was afforded a unique opportunity to use a tv show
to bring to the attention of people in Los Angeles a developing
situation that might have no interest at all to people in South
Central or Tustin or Pacoima. It was only coincidentally aimed at
some of you living hundreds or even thousands of miles away. But,
as I should have guessed, there will always be a few of you
mosquitoes who have nothing better to do with your time than to
stick your faces in where you can do no good...but you love to do
harm. Or if not active harm, to shout and strut and demand this
and that, all as if _your_ opinion mattered.
If you cannot be of assistance, back off, go away, and shut the
phuque up. No one needs the white noise din of your carping and
insinuations. If you want to be of help to the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy--which is the state-funded agency behind this
attempt to curtail rampant DonaldTrumpism--then _do_ something.
_What_ you do is up to you. I cannot tell you what might be of aid,
beyond trying to get Councilman Feuer to help protect this
beautiful, greenbelt land, but if you aren't an Ageleno...piss off,
if all you want to do is Come to the Meeting Late and Demand to
Know What Everyone Said for the Lifetime Preceding. Because,
frankly, you noisome twerps, you are the ones who are meant when
we rail against Those Who Didn't Get the Word.
Harlan Ellison
24 June 98
Rick Wyatt
Morgan <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Not what I thought at all. You are someone who expends a lot of useful
>energy with Harlan, and the Net. And I've been the pleased recipient of
>many of your posts. But this one was just *terrible*. I had no doubt
>Harlan knew about the post - you wouldn't post using his name unless
>that were so. But I doubt he saw the post before it went out.
I've looked over the original message, and I have to say I can't make
a strong case against any of your criticism. I will endeavor to do
better in the future.
>And apart from anything else, knowing how boringly nasty some people
>seem to be as soon as you mention Harlan's name ...you should have known
>better about the wording of the post! red rag to a bull!
Yeah, although I do think no matter how well the post had been worded
originally I would have received much the same response from some
people, the simple fact is there were a number who responded merely
because of that wording.
BTW, I have typed in Harlan's response (which is rather nasty,
although I wouldn't say boringly so) and will post it under the
original thread in reply to one of my own message and under a new
thread so it does not appear in response to anyone in particular.
Vicki Rosenzweig
In article <35940748....@nnrp2.crl.com>, rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) wrote:
>Morgan <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Get off the 'you're all just persecuting me 'cos I like Harlan'
>>bandwagon. You're being got at because the post was naff. Just say,
>>"Naff post, here, I've replaced it with a good one." And go write the
>>good one, and let this boring little teacup storm die. You can't come
>>here.
>It's my opinion (yours may differ) that although some folks like
>yourself gave constructive criticism, a few others seemed to be
>involved merely for the taste of the blood. While my post may have
>been 'naff', can you honestly go back and read all the responses,
>especially the responses to the answers I gave in good faith to the
>questions asked, and tell me it's all merely because of an original
>post that wasn't all that it could be?
>
>excuse me for saying that while there are some folks questioning me
>because they are truly interested you've also got about the average
>Usenet share of self-righteous pricks, and the sight of the name
>"Harlan Ellison" seems to have put a bee in their bonnet.
>
The thing is, you were using the name "Harlan Ellison" in order to
get the attention, and help, of a large number of people who would
almost certainly have ignored a post that said "Help save Los
Angeles watershed land from development" and never mentioned
Ellison. If you know Harlan as well as you say, you surely know
that he is a somewhat controversial personality, and that while
there are people who will get involved in this because he asks
them to, there are others who will be suspicious of it for the
same reason. That goes with the territory, and was your choice
when you brought this to rec.arts.sf.fandom, where the only
reason it isn't off-topic is that nothing is off-topic here: surely
you don't think there's anything specifically related to sf or
fandom in this *other than* Ellison's involvement. (If this land
is stfnally relevant, by all means tell us about that.)
<rest snipped>
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
"Typos are Coyote padding through the language, grinning."
-- Susanna Sturgis
Avram Grumer
In article <359318fb...@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) wrote:
> You are of course correct that railing at the "evil private school" is
> of little use, and I have apologized for taking that tack. I did so
> only in relating Mr. Ellison's own opinion and I think perhaps I have
> taken enough flack for that at this point.
I may be misremembering (it was a week ago), but as I recall Harlan's
statements on the Tom Snyder show, he wasn't so much demonizing the school
as an "evil private school" as he was complaining about their wanting to
build tennis courts.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach him how to fish, and you can sell him equipment.
Joel Rosenberg
In article <_DVk1.1726$P8.56...@ptah.visi.com>, dsg...@visi.com says...
I dunno. If I understand the import of his perhaps less than entirely temperate
message of today, perhaps he wished to use an internet-wide newsgroup, as he
wished to use a national television show, to communicate with a very narrow
segment of that audience, and expected or hoped or insists or something that the
rest of the world should feel obligated to make no comment.
Perhaps, in the future, it would be helpful if he'd clue folks in on the intended
audience of his various calls to arms -- or even use less broad-band media for the
calls themselves -- but I'm not a'goin' to be holding my breath.
Alternately, one could argue that Mr. Ellison considers SF fandom to be a public
utility.
Avram Grumer
In article <35942394....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) wrote:
> HARLAN RESPONDS TO THE PINHEADS:
This whole thing, not just Harlan's message but the thread leading up to
it, ought to be archived somewhere as a sterling example of exactly the
way one ought _not_ to go about asking for public support for a cause on
the net.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach him how to fish, and you drive up the price of
bait and tackle, and disrupt the local ecosystem.
Joel Rosenberg
In article <35941aa1....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
>>>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>>>>1) I recall reading that Harlan Ellison has stated publicly that he is not
>>>>and never was an sf writer. (As distinguished from a writer who has
>>>>written science fiction?)
>>>Harlan hates the term "sci-fi"
>>fiction_. I did not use the term "sci-fi", I did not refer to it in any
>
>...and I have _less than nothing_ to say further to you, or anyone
>else who can't be at least marginally polite. Good day.
>curator, Ellison Webderland http://www.menagerie.net/ellison/
Dan's observation that your response was not on point was phrased quite
politely, albeit demonstrating a touch of perhaps not entirely unwarranted
irritation, resulting in a minor bit of hyperbole -- and surely, surely somebody
as fond of Mr. Ellison's writing as you are can't be terribly sensitive to even
much more vigorous hyperbole, or your fingers would have broken out in flames
while typing Mr. Ellison's latest message at your keyboard.
True, your response did not actually have "less than nothing" to do with what
Dan wrote. But it was rather a non sequitur passing itself off as a response,
and for Dan to point that out is while perhaps unpleasant for you to be on the
receiving end of, nevertheless is a reasonable thing to expect when one no
doubt unintentionally puts forth a non sequitur as a response.
James Nicoll
In article <35933A...@learnlink.emory.edu>,
Ray Radlein <rad...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>>
>> r...@learnlink.emory.edu says...
>> >
>> >And I was simply thinking of the almost inevitable result of any
>> >usenet discussion of Harlan Ellison ("He's just like Heinlein,
>> >only alive").
>>
>> reminiscent of Heinlein?
>
>Any sensible discussion of either of them disintigrates immediately upon
>contact with usenet.
>
>
>The *difference* is that all Heinlein discussions devolve into "Gun
>Control" arguments, whereas all Ellison discussions devolve into "Wotta
>Rat Bastard" arguments.
What's to argue about gun control? Everyone but Terry Austin
should have one.
--
"That wasn't a come-up. *This* is a come-on."
"Ew. Ew, yuck."
"Sorry, it wasn't supposed to involve so much saliva."
CensusGrrl
Rick Wyatt writes:
>I'm afraid the information I got from the Ellisons did not have the
>names of the proposed buildings, but it did contain a map showing the
>proposed construction:
>
>A new performing arts center (The Roy Disney Pavilion)
>A new 2-story science building
>A new set of of what looks like tennis courts
>A new middle school complex
>A second floor on one building for special classes
>Two new smaller structures added onto existing pavilions which are
>unidentified on the map.
>
>The Buckley School can be contacted at (818)783-1610 for proposed
>building names and other information.
>
>I'll also post the rest of the information I got in subsequent
>messages to this same thread.
>
Thank you very much. I haven't even looked at the rest of the messages
following this one yet, but we're certainly off to an excellent start. Raw
information is always welcome.
I wonder about that reference to "a new performing arts center (The Roy Disney
Pavilion)," as the Buckley School web site shows photographs of what appears to
be an already-existing Disney Pavilion, described as including "an experimental
theatre, a gymnasium, a swimming pool, an orchestra rehearsal room, and an
auditorium with a fully equipped stage for the performing arts." That sort of
implies that the Pavilion has long since been built, I'd think, and therefore,
not to put too fine a point on it, it can't exactly be "proposed construction."
I must admit, that makes me think logically that the "new 2-story science
building" is perhaps the also-already-built Quinn Martin Hall of Science.
Owell. More research for me to sift through.
Again, though, thanks!
Dan Goodman
In article <avram-26069...@avram.port.net>,
Avram Grumer <av...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>In article <35942394....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
>rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) wrote:
>
>> HARLAN RESPONDS TO THE PINHEADS:
>
>This whole thing, not just Harlan's message but the thread leading up to
>it, ought to be archived somewhere as a sterling example of exactly the
>way one ought _not_ to go about asking for public support for a cause on
>the net.
Starting, of course, with Rick Wyatt's SUBJECT LINE IN ALL CAPS.
Ray Radlein
mike weber wrote:
>
> Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
>
> >Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>
> >> I'm croggled. What is there about Ellison that's at all
> >> reminiscent of Heinlein?
> >
> >Any sensible discussion of either of them disintigrates
> >immediately upon contact with usenet.
> >
> >
> >The *difference* is that all Heinlein discussions devolve into
> >"Gun Control" arguments, whereas all Ellison discussions devolve
> >into "Wotta Rat Bastard" arguments.
> >
I kind of thought that was implied by the word "arguments."
- Ray R.
--
********************************************************************
"I've got three paperclips, a toaster, and some pantyhose. If
I can find a bar of chocolate and some hairspray, I can make
myself a suit of BIO-BOOSTER ARMOR!" -- MacGuyver
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
********************************************************************
mike weber
Sometime around Sat, 27 Jun 1998 04:07:57 -0400, Ray Radlein
<r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
>mike weber wrote:
>>
>> Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
>>
>> >Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm croggled. What is there about Ellison that's at all
>> >> reminiscent of Heinlein?
>> >
>> >Any sensible discussion of either of them disintigrates
>> >immediately upon contact with usenet.
>> >
>> >
>> >The *difference* is that all Heinlein discussions devolve into
>> >"Gun Control" arguments, whereas all Ellison discussions devolve
>> >into "Wotta Rat Bastard" arguments.
>> >
>> You forgot the "Oh, no he -isn't!"- responses.
>
>I kind of thought that was implied by the word "arguments."
>
I'm sorry. I misread your post. I thought you had repeated the word
"discussions"...
--
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
History doesn't always repeat itself -- sometimes it
just screams "Why don't you listen to what I'm telling
you?" and lets fly with a club. -- JWCjr
mike weber
Sometime around 26 Jun 1998 20:39:08 GMT, Loren Joseph MacGregor
<lmac...@efn.org> opined:
>In rec.arts.sf.fandom, mike weber <emsh...@aol.com> wrote:
>: Sometime around 26 Jun 1998 15:43:24 GMT, Loren Joseph MacGregor
>: <lmac...@efn.org> opined:
>
>: >In rec.arts.sf.fandom, mike weber <emsh...@aol.com> wrote:
>: >: Sometime around Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:55:40 -0400, Ray Radlein
>: >: <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> opined:
>: >
>: >: >mike weber wrote:
>: >
>: >: >> To be honest, this far down this cascade i wasn't even thinking
>: >: >> "Harlan" when i typed my response to Ray...
>: >: >
>: >: >And I was simply thinking of the almost inevitable result of any usenet
>: >: >discussion of Harlan Ellison ("He's just like Heinlein, only alive").
>: >
>: >: "...and shorter,"
>: >
>: >-sigh- And I'm shorter than Harlan Ellison. So?
>: >
>: You are? ((Geeze))
>
>: No -- just a usual part of such discussions... I didn't even mean it
>: insultingly. If i had, there would have been adverbs.
>
>Oh, I know. But this very type of exchange was what prompted
>my first (and so far only) written exchange with Harlan. I
>have to agree with him that short jokes get old pretty fast.
>
>Like jokes about names, everyone who makes them seems to feel
>they're making them for the first time. I got as tired of
>short jokes as I did of jokes about Lorna Doone.
>
>But I'll climb off my soapbox now. (I needed it so I could
>look you in the eyes when I said that.)
I never make short jokes about Harlan ((well, there's one apocryphal
story that's too good to pass up, but i'm just as likely to tell that
one about a generic short, irritating lecherous person at an SF
con...)) -- about the only times i refer to his height at all are when
i'm going into full "... sawed-off little such-and-so ..." mode, when
it's just part of a discussion of his general annoyingness.
This mode happens much less frequently than it used to, mostly because
i'm not -quite- so easy to anger as i used to be. ((I cannot speak
for Mr. Ellison in this connection)) and Harlan generally only comes
to my attention in either neutral or positive connections these
days...
mike weber
Sometime around Fri, 26 Jun 1998 21:12:51 GMT, dsg...@visi.com (Dan
Goodman) opined:
>Question: When did he decide that he preferred not to be considered a
>science fiction writer?
At least as far back as the Seventies, i believe.
mike weber
Sometime around Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:03:49 GMT,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) opined:
>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>>Rick Wyatt <rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net> wrote:
>>>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>>>>1) I recall reading that Harlan Ellison has stated publicly that he is not
>>>>and never was an sf writer. (As distinguished from a writer who has
>>>>written science fiction?)
>>>Harlan hates the term "sci-fi"
>>Which has _less than nothing_ to do with what I wrote. I wrote _science
>>fiction_. I did not use the term "sci-fi", I did not refer to it in any
>
>...and I have _less than nothing_ to say further to you, or anyone
>else who can't be at least marginally polite. Good day.
Doesn't sound terribly impolite to me. Sounds like a perfectly
natural reaction to an attempt to change the terms of discourse after
the ball was in play...
In case you are not aware of the distinction, people who fit the
definition of "fan" as used in the name of this group ((which is,
admittedly a "what i point at when i say 'fan' ... " definition, but
who self-select on a remarkably consistent basis)) generally will tell
you they are not "sci-fi" fans, since that is a term applied primarily
by outsiders who group a -lot- of irrelevant and even -bad- stuff
under it.
This group used "SF" or "science fiction" to refer to what we're
about.
Someone denying that he's a "sci-fi" writer sounds like something most
of the pro-writers who lurk or post to this group would do, if someone
said "Oh -- you write sci-fi, right?".
That was not the question asked in the previous post about HE.
The question was "Does Ellison deny he's a science-fiction writer?"
By answering as you did, whether you realised it or not, you gave the
impression of ducking the question and setting up a straw man. This
is -not- something you're going to get away with on this group, if it
was your intent.
From this poitn, you have two options.
(A) If it was simply that you didn't know The Code ((as i can see it
easily could be)), you might consider what i've said and consider
whether it was as "insulting" a response as you assumed...
(B) If you -did- know what i've said above, and you -were-
weasel-wording, and used the "insulting tone" as an attempt to evade
answering the question asked, then drop dead.
Thank you, and good night.
mike weber
Sometime around Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:49:54 GMT, dsg...@visi.com (Dan
Goodman) opined:
>In article <35941aa1....@nnrp2.crl.com>,
>Rick Wyatt <rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net> wrote:
>>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>>>Rick Wyatt <rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net> wrote:
>>>>dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>>>>>1) I recall reading that Harlan Ellison has stated publicly that he is not
>>>>>and never was an sf writer. (As distinguished from a writer who has
>>>>>written science fiction?)
>>>>Harlan hates the term "sci-fi"
>>>Which has _less than nothing_ to do with what I wrote. I wrote _science
>>>fiction_. I did not use the term "sci-fi", I did not refer to it in any
>>
>>...and I have _less than nothing_ to say further to you, or anyone
>>else who can't be at least marginally polite. Good day.
>
>Oh, I _was_ minimally polite. I may also have been disrespectful and
>mildly condescending, however.
>
Only if you interpreted his response incorrectly -- i.e., if he
-really- didn't know why responding that HE says he's not a "sci-fi"
writer is unresponsive tothe question "Is HE an 'SF' writer?"
mike weber
Sometime around 26 Jun 1998 22:10:23 GMT, Loren Joseph MacGregor
<lmac...@efn.org> opined:
>In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>: Question: When did he decide that he preferred not to be considered a
>: science fiction writer?
>
>I don't know, but I would suspect it would be related to the reasons
>Kurt Vonnegut gave for not calling himself a science fiction writer:
>"When it is called 'science fiction, it gets placed in the science
>fiction section and sometimes get reordered; when it is not labeled
>'science fiction,' it gets put in the literature section AND the
>science fiction section, and sells many more copies." That's a
>quasi-quote, by the way, as it's been years since I saw the
>interview in question.
Excellent reason. However, a lot of people apply the duck test.
mike weber
Sometime around Fri, 26 Jun 1998 21:08:19 GMT,
rwyatt...@menagerie.removeme.net (Rick Wyatt) opined:
>censu...@aol.com (CensusGrrl) wrote:
>>I'm on the East Coast, and infer that this issue may have been discussed
>>extensively in local newspapers. I'd like to see the perspectives and coverage
>>of this issue that must be available from other participants or journalists
>>covering the story. Can you point me in the direction of further resources for
>>information about the facts of this park dispute?
>
>Here are a couple past news items which might shed some light on the
>area's historical significance. The Edgar Rice Burroughs newsgroup
>might be a good resource for further information:
>
>=================
>HE given Burroughs Bibliophiles award
>This weekend at their annual meeting, the Edgar Rice Burroughs society
>gave Harlan their annual Bibliophiles award. Harlan helped save 200
>acres of watershed land (chronicled elsewhere in this newspage) from
>developers, the very land where Burroughs used to ride and hike and
>the inspiration for much of his work. Ellison also campaigned for a
>park to be commissioned for Burroughs in the area.
>
Ah ha. Now it begins to make sense. Harlan already has a use in mind
for this land that he does not own; one which will respond well on
himself ((whether or not this is a major consideration with him i do
not know)).
This useage is, apparently, to establish it as a memorial park for an
author who is generally known to the public in general as the creator
of a semi-human ((but handsome)) character who communicates in grunts
and yodels. ((Which, i know, is -not- the truth, but, if the average
guy on the street knows anything about ERB at all, it probably has a
Tarzan yell attached to it...))
Meanwhile, the school, who -do- own the land, want to build buildings
on it that will, if the school is any good, tend in the medium to long
run to act toward the benefit of the community as a whole.
Now i understand.
Gee, whiz -- how dare that mean ol' school try to build useful
buildings on land it already owns instead of letting us put a park
there to honour ERB?
mike weber
Sometime around Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:57:57 GMT, v...@interport.net (Vicki
Rosenzweig) opined:
>If you know Harlan as well as you say, you surely know
>that he is a somewhat controversial personality, and that while
>there are people who will get involved in this because he asks
>them to, there are others who will be suspicious of it for the
>same reason. That goes with the territory, and was your choice
>when you brought this to rec.arts.sf.fandom, where the only
>reason it isn't off-topic is that nothing is off-topic here: surely
>you don't think there's anything specifically related to sf or
>fandom in this *other than* Ellison's involvement. (If this land
>is stfnally relevant, by all means tell us about that.)
Well, it seems that a part of Harlan's intent here is to help a
movement to establish an Edgar Rice Burroughs memorial park on some of
the land, which ((despite the flippant manner in which i referred to
the General Public's level of knowledge of Burrouhghs -- if they have
-any- such knowledge at all...)) seems to me as Not At All A Bad
Thing. That would seem to make it fannishly interesting.
If that had been a major part of the information contained in the
original post -- instead of blatting Harlan's name ((indeed, a red
flag to the bull for a lot of fans; it's only recent years when i've
been able to sit back and try to be intellectually analytical rather
than emotionally reactive to situations in which HE is invoked on one
side or the other...)) and sounding as if the school was virtually a
special prep school for Servants Of The Adversary On Earth, then at
least some of the reactions to it might well have been different.
I'm at least mildly positive for the park, where i was neutral on
school vs. Harlan, with a slight annoyance-engendered bias toward the
school.
--
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
"No use searching for the answers if the questions
are in doubt." F.leBlanc
mike weber
Sometime around Sat, 27 Jun 1998 10:09:56 GMT, emsh...@aol.com (mike
weber) opined:
>I'm at least mildly positive for the park, where i was neutral on
>school vs. Harlan, with a slight annoyance-engendered bias toward the
>school.
>
I have re-read all of my own posts in this matter. Up until one that
((if i've read the time fields correctly)) went out some time after Mr
Wyatt posted HE's comments, but ((i must adit)) before i'd read them,
what i've had to say has been pretty much flippant bits around the
edges, neither positive nor negative about the core issue.
Harlan's comments are of a piece with a lot of Harlan's comments --
inflmmatory and unnecessarily insulting and off-putting even to those
who might well have come down on his side. I really think that he
-might- have given us one [rather more temperate, perhaps] statement
of his position and his reasons for it, before whipping out his little
verbal flamethrower and annhilating the bunch of us, essentially
dismissing all Usenet users as semi-literate and beneath his touch.
But, hey. He didn't.
And, now that all is said and done, i'll go on pretty much the way i
always have -- being somewhat annoyed still by a couple of past
personal encounters with HE, being somewhat buoyed up by remembrances
of another such and absolutely -ecstatic- at the big-heartedness and
diligence and passion HE exhibited in regards to the Wellman Memorial
Auction at the '86 WorldCon here in Atlanta.
Not to mention an intensely loyal reader of his fiction and prose
essays.
Sometimes divorcing Harlan the writer from Harlan the Annoying One is
difficult.
But it's almost always worth it.